"washington journal," continues. richard weitz joins us now. he serves at the hudson institute talking about the first anniversary of the taliban taking over the afghanistan. but first, could you talk about the hudson institute? guest: it is one of several independent research organizations located primarily in washington focusing on international policy questions and how to include the u.s. response. it was set up after world war ii and the initial question of interest was we have now seen use of nuclear weapons for the

first time, will they be used again? what does that mean for international politics. what questions do we need to address? it is evolved over time with different focuses. sometimes domestic politics, sometimes foreign policy. we have been focused a lot on china. hudson is divided into several centers. my center focuses a lot on the great power relations, i've a book coming out on the russia /china relations. the iran negotiations, korean nuclear weapons. other centers focus on different areas of policy. host: hudson.org. and a recent piece on the

one-year anniversary of the taliban taking control of afghanistan you describe that country as a country adrift. what you mean by that? guest: i meant that there are still open questions about the futures of afghanistan internally and even more so, its relationship with the outside world. internally, there was some hope and initial indication that the taliban would behave differently than the first time it was in power from 1996-2001. there was an openness for media engagement initially, not immediately requiring changes from women and other groups. but we have seen during this

past year a tightening of control and increased repression. internationally, it is up in the air what their relationship will be between the taliban and other countries. no foreign government has recognized the taliban. it is unique. they are a transitional government but even when they were in power before they had three other countries recognize them. this time, none. there have been efforts to reach out and engage at various levels, particularly humanitarian relief. to change their policies towards women. but they have all been transient. it still remains to be seen what the role of afghanistan will be in the world and how the u.s. and other countries will deal with it. host: before he was killed in

that recent drone strike, what did the president in kabul will tell us about the taliban and how different the taliban of today is from the taliban of 21 years ago? guest: that was an alarming development. when the taliban was first in power, they gave sanctuary to terrorist organizations like al qaeda. these groups take advantage of the sanctuary of the taliban regime to try and attack other countries outside of afghanistan. many of them were neighboring countries. pakistan, uzbekistan,

but most famously the attack on the u.s.. now they are back into power in one of the questions people have is will they give harbor again to international terrorist and what kind of freedom will they allow them. it is clear that there are some international terrorist but unlike the taliban, who say they are trying to change their country inside. the head of al qaeda, it is not clear how many people are there. there has not been an attack

organized in afghanistan like they were when they were first in power. some people think the taliban will give harbor to some of these people but not engage in international terrorist activities. the answers we have gotten or not reassuring. they have lied to us and they knowingly harbored international terrorist. they didn't know what the other factions are doing and that leads us to wonder if most of the taliban is trying to restrain international terrorism. host: let me offer up the phone numbers for other viewers to join the conversation. we have special lines for veterans for the war of afghanistan. (202) 748-8000, republicans

(202) 748-8001, an independents (202) 748-8002. go ahead and call in with your comments and questions. the story from today's wall street journal. the biden administration has decided it will not release any of the $700 billion held by afghanistan central bank on u.s. soil and has suspended talks with the taliban over those funds after the killing of eyman al swahiri. guest: they were quoting people from the island administration, but that is not quite accurate.

what happened with the afghan economy since the year of taliban control has been disastrous. there are different words you could use that are just as good. afghanistan has suffered from long standing problems like drought. they have been dependent on foreign aid. with the end of the civil war, you see a decline in violence and safety in some areas but you have also seen a substantial decline in international aid. what has happened that during the 20 years of fighting with the taliban, their leaders in the group itself was put under international sanctions. now that they have seize control of the government, any of the

government bodies are also on those list. the international community, the u.n., the u.s. has been struggling to find a mechanism to provide assistance to the afghan people who are now suffering in addition from the long-standing drought, last of cash, underemployment, the collapse in public services and so on. the united states and other countries as well have been trying to work with the united nations and through nongovernmental organizations to get the money and aid to the people. that has only been partially successful. even if it is, it has not solve the problem entirely. we have moved away from the provisions of emergency to a longer-term development that would help the country wean itself off from our aid. until we work out a better

arrangement with the taliban which could include a return of some of the $700 billion that is being held in new york. i think there is 2 billion in other countries. this will remain a problem. host: this is tim out of wisconsin. on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask this gentleman, afghanistan has been a tough situation for 2000 years. we thought we could change it but my biggest question is, why did president trump hand over the country to the taliban? i know that biden claimed it was messy, he should have done better. at the time we bailed out, from what i understand, the taliban had every provincial capital in the country surrounded. they were just biding their time

because we had signed off on getting out. they were over here at camp david with negotiations with the taliban. what possessed trump to turn the country over to the taliban? thank you. guest: we have an interesting phenomenon in the parts of the war, it was purported by many of the defense experts, the people in washington that over time, the popularity of the american public to continue this engagement declined. at some point, president trump and president biden had the decision that staying in afghanistan and keeping

thousands of u.s. troops there was counterproductive. there was some hope that the taliban had been reformed. there was more hope that the afghan public institutions were stronger after all of those years of age. there were some other arguments about well, afghanistan was a unique problem in the 1990's and early 2000, but now there are other threats from terrorists based in libya, yemen. the u.s. has other challenges with taiwan and ukraine. president trump and president biden decided that to curtail the u.s. military presence after having to leverage that to the afghan institutions is much as

possible and get the taliban to moderate its policy. to moderate its policies. it didn't work. there are a lot of problems in the execution of the withdrawal. many in d.c. wanted to keep a small force there, a couple thousand troops in hopes that could sustain counterinsurgency, and president biden argued that would not work. president trump had the same thinking. in a way, it hasn't been too much of a partisan issue. it has been trans partisan, what republicans and democrats want for the mission in both parties as well as critical leaders with president trump and president biden, who felt the persistent gap between american commitments

and american resources, it was better to focus on other areas. they are still studying execution, the misperceptions. we underestimated the strength of the taliban, we overestimated the strength of the afghan government, and have seen similar failures in the ukraine war. that's all being analyzed, but there was a lot of uncertainty and unfortunately, they all went against staying in. there were a lot more negatives than we had hoped. host: lucy in new york, republican. good morning. caller: ok, the afghans keep saying they were helping the americans, but they were fighting for their country. why couldn't they be brave like ukrainians instead of all the men jumping on the jet, getting out of there, probably leaving

their families? i think we should forget about afghanistan, and why are we looking at china? it doesn't make sense why the leaders would do this. and why can't they take out putin? he has practically declared a nuclear war, with all the nato countries and american countries. couldn't they just use a drone to take him out? host: a couple of different places around the world. where would you like to start? guest: afghanistan is interesting in the sense that there was some debate as the u.s. was withdrawing by both, and this was discussed by people in the trump administration and the biden administration, the u.s. is getting in a difficult situation with russia and china. we are looking for means to keep them from uniting against us. if we were to withdraw from

afghanistan, perhaps that would force them to stop pre- riding on our efforts there. troops, native support, extra money with support from russia and china -- we could put the burden onto them, they would have to pay for the lead of securing the country -- so far that hasn't occurred. there is also thinking we could maybe get them into competition for the area, but this is a factor that is thinking about, how do we keep russia and china divided, how do we deal with the threats from russia and china, maybe cooperate with them? this is an area where there has been some progression, at least diplomatically. afghanistan is interesting because it is in a -- an

example of a world of great powers rivaling the united states, russia and china. host: this is joe in biddeford, maine, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to ask a couple quick questions before i forget. you seem to imply that the trump and biden administrations had some kind of agreement, they had a policy that they agreed on. i don't think that happened. my second point i would like you to clarify, they asked why there was an afghanistan represented --. i would like you to go further, they release 1000 taliban from the prison. taliban released in the prison,

i don't know what town it was in, but obama released 13 americans, which everyone is crying about. it was pompeo that released the taliban prisoners, not obama. can you focus on that? guest: i don't rightly know the answer to the last question. what i would say, with respect -- the biden and trump presidencies, you saw this issue was debated and discussed within both. it has long been debated, how long can we keep the troops there, what would be the risk if we withdrew them? maybe keep a small amount, on number, as we had been doing for a while. maybe we could have a sur

ge, as we did under the obama administration. what happened over time with presidents who made the decisions and negotiations that secured the withdrawal agreement, then, president biden continued and executed that. some people say that they would have done it differently, some biden people say if there had been a different aspect of the deal they would have gone in a different course. but they wanted to focus on other areas, russia, china, and so on. that is where i see a lot of continuity, but some of the other questions you mentioned, i think they are now looking very closely into action reviews, why we underestimated the threat, why the government fell so

quickly, why were the prisoners released? i am sure these are being discussed. we are waiting for the answers on those as the reviews continue. host: i want to go back to the united states being the largest donor to afghanistan over the past year. some $775 million in aid efforts over the year. can you explain how that works? how the united states moves money to those groups operating in afghanistan? how did they ensure that some or most of that money does not fall into the hands of the taliban? how does that process work? guest: sure. with a caveat, i know the military and political execution is a bit better than economic, so i might be incorrect in some of my answer, but the u.s. has, through the treasury department

and through the un security council granted very extensive exemptions to the sanctions regime to allow for the flow of humanitarian aid to afghan beneficiaries. there is a trust fund by the u.n. established to provide help for the needy afghans, elderly and disabled, to help public infrastructure, public funding, and basically the idea is that the u.s. and u.n. are allowing the funding from their own courses as well as other americans and other ngos, to go into afghanistan as long as it circumvents the afghan public institutions under taliban control.

thus far, the taliban has generally permitted this. there have been reports that they are trying to divert the aid to beneficiaries they favor, but it is not widespread. it's unclear how long that can continue, and as we mentioned, there is still a problem, this does provide short-term relief. a lot of food aid and so on to keep people from starving, so we did not have a disastrous winter as many people feared, but it really does not transition the country to move away from this dependence, to be able to stand more on its own feet. this is the dilemma, as the taliban heightens up, some of that aid may slow down, but even if it continues, there's got to be a mechanism to help restart the economy, which is suffering from intense inflation, a lack

of cash, because even though there have been extensive sanction waivers, they have been mostly noncommercial entities that have been engaged. some banks hesitate to deal with afghan entities because of the sanctions. host: heading down to texas, lake jackson, texas. tom, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: good morning, sir. you are on with richard weitz. caller: i would like to say, i am a trump supporter, and bob woodward did a good job in his book. he spent two years researching -- i don't agree with his opinion, but he put down 19 things that trump did for the country, and i will just say three of the top things. he controlled immigration. he reduced taxes. and he improved our standing in the world. i think he would be the right man to run again because people

have seen what the democrats are doing, and i think the majority of americans think we are on the wrong path. host: got your point, tom. richard weitz, bringing it back to afghanistan, there was a lot of concern to your ago today and in the week -- concern a year ago today and in the weeks that followed among the united states and allies. what the pullout from afghanistan, the damage it might have done to that standing. what is your assessment? guest: that was my concern. i will say that the damage, at least in my assessment, has been less. one, this is not a new phenomenon. i grew up during the vietnam war and there was a lot of concern about how the u.s. defeat in vietnam, the withdrawal and collapse of the government is something similar to what we have seen an afghanistan,

negatively affecting the u.s.' role in the world. but we -- but reagan came in, we had a response on policy, and that has had less of an impact then we feared. maybe we could find some historical pattern that in some cases, countries can survive these kinds of setbacks due to their inherent strength, as we know from the united states' strong economy, strong military, healthy society and so on. something that has helped negate some of the negative impacts of global protection of the afghan setbacks has been the ukraine war. in a way, the u.s. has managed to overcome a lot of the doubts that arose in afghanistan. in ukraine, the u.s., with a lot

of help from allies, have actually been able to build a strong foreign military, the ukrainian armed forces is a lot better than we expected. nato didn't collapse, there was some thoughts that if nato failed in afghanistan, it is going to fail everywhere. nato has held firm in the case of ukraine, so i think that the u.s. successes in ukraine have negated many of the peer perceptions and negatives in afghanistan. at least in the case of china, when the leader was pondering whether to attack taiwan or not, they will probably look at how the u.s. is responding to the attack on ukraine rather than how the u.s. responded in afghanistan. host: and another thing, a year

ago, all the equipment that got left behind, concerns about handing that over to the taliban. how much of the equipment has the taliban been able to put to use? what is their arsenal right now, as it were? what does their military look like? guest: yes, we left an enormous amount of equipment there. most of it was small arms, light weapons, planes were disabled or flew off with their pilots to neighboring countries, uzbekistan, could you stand -- kajikastan, and they are well equipped with american small arms and so on, but they don't have much of the systems. when there was an earthquake in

afghanistan last month, they only had a few helicopters they could use to reach the area. i would say, it has not enhanced the ability of the taliban too, for example, attack foreign countries. it has given them better weapons, but similar to the weapons they already had. they already have a lot of weapons from the afghan government. but more concerning, there is such a large drawing of these weapons, some of them have probably been sold on open markets. so they're probably flowing into conflict zones throughout the region -- syria, yemen, who knows where? this is adding to the flow of uncontrolled weapons. there is nothing like stingers, and higher missiles, thing -- anti-air missles --

missiles, things that would be unique. host: richard weitz of the hudson institute. if you want to join the line and call in, like mary did in san francisco, independent. caller: yes, i have a question for your guest. i get so frustrated with the first c-span, because a couple of colors ago, indicated, which what prompted my call, people are so -- as trump said himself -- poorly educated and ill-informed. can you please talk about the history of afghanistan and how westernized it was prior to the mujahedin taking over? women were allowed to wear miniskirts in those days. what happened was a reaction from the fundamentalist religious nuts, and is happening

in this country, to westernization. the same thing happened in iran. iran was westernized. but when people say on the afghanistan topic how that country has been in turmoil or the middle east has been in turmoil for thousands and thousands -- they are so ill-informed. not even three, 4, 5 decades ago, they were as western as california. thank you. host: richard weitz on the history of afghanistan? guest: afghanistan has had a turbulent history, in the midst of several empires, but is also somewhat distant and landlocked. we have also seen a series of wars occurring in governments and dynasties. there was a liberalization period after world war ii and the caller is right. if you look at photos from the

1950's, 1960's and even 1970's, you can see women in kabul dressing in modern clothing, not just miniskirts, but also standard dresses and so on, same with the men. they were wearing ties and so on. as things started to go downhill, when the soviet union tried to impose a communist government. marxist-leninism had a really negative response, the efforts by socialism in the soviet garb, force modernization, secularization and so on triggered a reaction, particularly in the provinces. as the government that was trying to impose the marxist values aligned with the soviet union weakened, they sent

in their own forces to try and save it. we ended up with an eight year occupation and that is when the radicalization became more hostile to globalization and modernization. those in power rejected not only the soviet communist version of modernization, but also the western one. that's the group that's in power, the one that formed the taliban leadership. they defeated the soviets, they defeated us, and they have a traditional view of the role of women in society and other questions, which is alien not only to modern western practice, apparent practice everywhere in the world, including in muslim countries. host: cheryl out of florida,

good morning. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is heartbreaking to see the pictures coming out of afghanistan. democrat or republican, it should break your heart. they have a humanitarian crisis. millions are starving, even their babies. i do think the withdrawal was a debacle. i think it was one of the worst military withdrawals ever and as a military veteran myself, i feel horrible for the soldiers who have shed their blood, given their lives in defense of these people. i would have seen nothing wrong with carrying a small troop level there, like we do around, in areas around the world. the girls losing their ability to go to school is the worst thing in the world that can happen, to take that education away from those girls. but that just breaks my heart. i don't care what party you are, what race you are, what religion , these people are starving.

my heart goes out to them in my prayers go out to them. thank you for taking my call. have a good day. guest: i really don't have anything for the caller -- i think we all share her grief. host: pictures of the humanitarian crisis in afghanistan -- this is from today's "washington post," babies receiving treatment for malnutrition saturday at a hospital in kabul. the economic collapse after the taliban takeover creating that humanitarian crisis. in terms of food shortages in afghanistan, how much has the country been able to grow their own food? how much did they need supplies from outside their borders? what is the food situation like? guest: there has been a long-standing problem of malnutrition and the lack of food and agricultural issues. this has been exacerbated by a couple years of drought and now

the curtailment of public services, so their ability of the afghans to feed themselves has declined. again, we thought there would be a more massive famine this past winter, but there was a massive effort by humanitarian organizations to bring in aid and that has limited somewhat the malnutrition, but it is still a long-term problem. they still need to get in, the foreign ngos and other groups need to go in and improve your vacation -- irrigation and agricultural efforts destructed by the war. we will need to keep providing emergency assistance on end. host: larry in houston, texas, democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. as a combat soldier, i am glad

everybody came back safe. they did come back. we need to stop fighting these illegal wars. you know, we are looking for al qaeda and bin laden -- not the whole of afghanistan. i had a father who fought in vietnam. [inaudible] it's true -- we cannot make these people be democrats or make them a democratic country if they don't want that. host: richard weitz? guest: the caller's views are apparently those of a view shared by many americans. there was a sense after vietnam that the u.s. was trying to impose its own values on a society that did not want them,

and that was partly true. i think many women, many groups in kabul were attracted by western models, and the u.s. has not had that much success in some of these modernization efforts. we were in the case of world war ii, with germany and japan for example, but not necessarily iraq or afghanistan. you have seen in both the cases of president trump and president biden, a reluctance to spend a lot of efforts on areas where conditions are unfavorable. in ukraine, there is a lot of hope that this will become a strong front for a democratic country, similar to other european countries, but in the case, in other cases, they do

not seem to be very favorable. we are reluctant to engage in this kind of civil society building, at least with military force in the future. host: is there an active military force resistance to the taliban inside of kabul right now? guest: yes. there are at least two large groups, some local groups. on the one hand, there is a group associated with a former government that is based in the penn cherry valley -- penn shear valley north -- the valley north of kabul. it has some limited areas, but its ability to expand beyond that is much more limited compared to let's say, the 1990's, when those kinds of

resistance groups were able to control much of the country to keep the taliban from exercising its control. host: another threat is less geographically based, but more violent. this is the islamic state affiliate in afghanistan. the taliban worked closely with al qaeda and some other international terrorist groups. the islamic state was competing with the taliban for control. they accuse the taliban of selling out to the americans, not fully implement in islam, so on. they have been waging a bombing campaign for years, and it is continuing under the taliban, in which they will kill large groups of often civilians, often ethnic minority groups or religious minority groups. the campaign has not gone beyond what it was when it was kept in

check by the previous afghan government. they don't control any particular part of the country, they dispersed. the taliban has been able to keep it in check but not defeat it yet. this has been an ongoing challenge, and a bit of one for us too, because the islamic state does not consider their leadership, the taliban, islamic leave rigorous, it will pressure the leadership to take a harder line. host: what happened to the group that we called the northern alliance? is there anything like that still in existence in afghanistan? guest: nope. great question. this is something that was

organized primarily by the central asian countries, so to g can stand -- tajikistan help support the ethnic minority, setting up a barrier, a group in the north that was able to interpose themselves, keep the taliban away. they were able to retain strong control over much of the north, letting the taliban consolidate control and eventually provided an important partner when the u.s. intervened in september 2001. but on this occasion, the government, the asian governments have not supported an insurgency against the taliban. the thaad -- tajik government

is still -- when it comes to the taliban. but in any case, none of them, nor the russians or chinese, have been supporting armed opposition to the taliban, meaning they are going to be in control for a while unless they have an internal split, or something happens. host: several more calls. david has been waiting in virginia, independent. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span, for taking my call. i have a couple of questions for mr. weitz. number one, how long was it after the u.s. intervened in afghanistan until al qaeda was defeated, and was not the taliban at a very weak point at that time? secondly, why did we wait so long to leave after osama bin

laden was killed, to wait another 10 years and the taliban got stronger, the afghan government not seemed to ever get their act together. finally, on the withdrawal, how much of the withdrawal was based on recommendations of the state department to defend the embassy and withdrawal troops from the bagram airbase, and not have sufficient amounts of troops to use bagram to exit people as well as the airport? just wanted to see what you think about blinken versus the department -- host: i worry we may not be able to get to all of those questions, but mr. weitz, a final couple minutes to take on

as many as you can. guest: the caller raises an important issue. the setbacks in afghanistan, the mistakes and failures have been a common feature of the war for the past 20 years. when we invaded the country, we did that with a small footprint and worked a lot with local partners who were able to secure control of kabul again and drive the taliban and their al qaeda allies out of the country, into pakistan, but we weren't able to destroy them. they were able to escape somewhat intact. the taliban, as the caller said, was substantially weakened, but those efforts failed for whatever reason.

they resumed their insurgency and al qaeda was able to take control of support and pakistan to establish its main center there. in the end, the u.s. had to go in and kill bin laden on pakistani soil. by that time, the insurgency, the taliban had resumed, and the u.s. decided rather to withdraw forces under president obama, we added supplemental forces. in a way, the caller raises some really important questions we need to look into -- why did the initial invasion fail? what mistakes were made that allowed the taliban to regenerate? why, not even after the large number of u.s. forces, we were able to push the taliban insurgency back down to low enough levels that the afghan government forces could deal with and so on, but these are

important questions historians will be struggling with in years to come. host: richard weitz taking on a lot of these questions in his work at the hudson institute. hudson.org, if you want to check them out. you can follow him on twitter am

laxalt in november. following her remarks, we will hear from mr. laxalt. ♪ [cheering]