we'll wait to hear the details. meantime, here's a few obvious questions. first, what is our objective in afghanistan? victory, of course. what does that mean? american troops have been there for 16 years in part because there's no consensus on what winning is.

if the measure is defeating the taliban, how will we know if we're beaten? how stable is stable enough? if we want a prosperous afghanistan, and that was the goal, is that possible in the next 50 years if ever? second, if we increase our presence in afghanistan, what long-term u.s. interests are we pursuing by doing that in the original goal was to eliminate state sponsored terrorist training camps. those are long gone. even if they came back, it's not clear how relevant they would be. islamists recruit on the internet and kill with cars. so if the goal is to keep islamic extremism from our shores, why is a war in afghanistan not as big as a more enforced travel ban?

and how have what we done in afghanistan for a decade that hasn't worked? how do we ensure trump's successor doesn't have to give a people like this in four more years? and how much do we have to achieve to meet these girls? we spent more than a trillion in afghanistan. more troops will mean more deaths and billions in money we don't have. is it worth it? if we send 5,000 troops to afghanistan and that strategy fails, will we cut our losses and leave as the soviets and british did? will we send another 5,000, 50,000? what is afghanistan worth to us? only the president knows for certain who he will say but one man that may have an inkling is eric prince from blackwater. he spent a lot of time in afghanistan. he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> what do you think the goal of

the american presence in afghanistan is? what is the point? >> it should be to deny terrorists sanctuary and leave. we've been at this for 16 years. it's america's longest war. we went there after 9-11, decimated the taliban in weeks. the longer we made hit the convention war, we adopted the so been at it for 16 years and spent close to a trillion dollars. it's time for a different paradigm. >> you've been there -- >> i sponsored a peace conference in 1997 already. so's been paying attention to afghanistan longer than most. >> you were just there. how would you compare to it 10, 15 years ago? >> much less stable. in 2002, 03, 04, you could drive around in a thin-skinned vehicle. now you have to be in fully armored vehicle because the taliban can crank out a car bomb

anywhere they want. >> sound like a disaster. >> it is. if the president sends 4,000, 6,000 or 10,000 and we had as many as 140,000 there and it doesn't work. we have to find a way to turn it over to the afghans and let them carry on and be done. >> tucker: you just described what i think i heard the president say or imply repeatedly. he's made that case again and again clear. his instincts are in that direction. how did he change that fuse on this? >> the president has rejected what he seems to be accepting tonight the last two years, but i think he feels political pressure and damage from the charlottesville issue and he doesn't want to fight the establishment. the establishment is baiting him into this. at 10:00 p.m., this will be trump's war. the media has ignored him. after eight or nine years, it's his. >> the president seems to trust generals. most presidents do. you seem to be saying they led him in the wrong direction.

>> i think it continued a conventional approach is not working. the best the taliban has survived. they know after 16 years of war -- they don't leave the zone. americans rotate in and leave. the taliban know how we move and work. that's why they're winning. >> tucker: could we achieve the goal that you stated at the outset, denying sanctuary to terrorists from the air? >> not just from the air. going back to a smaller footprint, a proven method of embedding with the afghan forces, giving them air power and governance. that's why i was asked to give a different paradigm rationalization. as much as the pentagon wants to talk about diversity and what they've pursued, they have not pursued diversity of thought. >> tucker: why is that?

>> the president has four conventional generals as his closest advisers. they're coming back with a very conventional plan. i'm worried if he accepts it, a year from now we'll be in the same situation. more americans dead, another $50 billion -- right now we're spending more than the u.k. defense budget just in afghanistan. we've had a navy with four collisions a global stand-down of the u.s. navy because of a positioning problem. there's a better way to spend $50 billion on recapitalizing the military or veteran healthcare or infrastructure in the united states. >> tucker: you think there's any chance -- we don't know the full outlines. we'll find out in the hour. you think there's any chance with 4,000 american troops if that number is correct that that number could make an appreciable difference in afghan?

>> no. the way army organizes, 600 or 700 can leave the wire. the rest are there for support. they don't leave the base. they're targets. >> tucker: the original idea is that terror training camps arise in places where there's a power vacuum and that we need to make sure that doesn't happen. but you have seen jihadis training in european cities and here in the united states. >> in their mom's basement. >> we need to rethink that idea? >> well, the sad thing is, with the metastasis of terror, they can be the individual operators, mobilized and activated by the internet and makes lots of places terror sanctuaries. the 9-11 attacks and the whole area is like one big gestational pit of terror. having some kind of -- i don't agree with completely pulling out of afghanistan. it would be a big failed state and another isis caliphate.

we can't keep doing the same thing for another -- how much longer? 16 years in 20 years? we've been there too long already. we've been there an entire military officer's career. you could be two years old on 9-11 and entering the military right now. >> an unnamed white house adviser told npr that they're thinking in terms of the occupation of the korean peninsula. that's been 60 years. >> what we get wrong, the afghans view the foreign military presence as an irritant. they'll fight against the notion of foreign troops on their soil. that's why i tried to give the president an option of localizing it, giving embedded advisers not wearing uniforms, giving them the skeletal support at the battalion level with afghan aircraft under afghan rules of engagement to make it that problem. it doesn't have to be the u.s. military's problem anymore. >> that's why too innovative. thanks for joining us tonight.

thanks for joining us. >> you bet. >> tucker: meanwhile, the u.s. commission on civil rights was quick to condemn last week's violence in charlottesville but they only condemned the white supremacists. why did they do that? peter joins us right now tonight. peter, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: so why would the commission -- if i'm understanding this correctly, this wasn't just thoughtless omission. this was an intentional decision not to condemn that violence. why would they make that decision? >> i think it's because they approve of certain set of political positions and disapprove of others. if you are perpetrating violence in furtherance of something they approve of, maybe they'll look

the other way. they refused to adopt a reasonable amendment to the resolution that all of us voted on condemning the violence in charlottesville, but the resolution was directed klan, the nazis. very appropriately so. that should have been condemned. >> tucker: of course. >> we made note of the tragic death of heather heyer. but there's a lot of reporting that shows that antifa was beating people, using clubs, beating people. made a very reasonable proposal, if you will, that said while we support peaceful protests, there was violent protests and we condemn violence by all sides including the so-call antifa group. the majority on the commission 6-2 voted against it. >> tucker: that seems like a reasonable proposal. did they explain why they didn't

vote for it? >> the only explanations we got were they didn't want to water down the original proposal. one of the commissions said, we don't want to necessarily condemn people that may have gotten carried away. that's an unsatisfactory response from the u.s. commission of civil rights. our statute says we de -- we are about equal viewpoints. we don't give license to another group the beat you with impunity. you should condemn other groups for the same type of violent behavior. >> tucker: because civil rights need to apply universally or they're not civil rights. >> that's right. we don't condone the white nationalists. that's not what this is about. this is about brutality against

americans. a separate standard applied to such brutality because, well, they're acting in a way of which certain people approve. the other side is acting in a way or furthering of a position that we disapprove of. that type of viewpoint, discrimination is opposite of what we say. you can easily say if a situational reverse 50 years ago, where should the united states commission on civil rights be? >> tucker: they can say, look, you can understand why somebody would be annoyed sitting in a lunch counter you didn't want. the point of america is, the ideal, we apply the laws universally according to citizenship. if you're an american citizen, the law treats you the same as any other american citizen. that idea seems under attack to me. >> it's under attack. we're engaging in identity politics to a poisonous degree. it's getting to be extremely dangerous. we expect at least the government and the media to be

objective and unbiassed and when the government and the media is not objective and unbiassed, we're going down a dangerous path. it can only end badly and i would hope we reverse this and seek to apply the law and seek to apply the way we condemn violence in a universal fashion and and even-handed fashion. >> i agree with that. people are afraid to stand up and say what is true. you're not. thanks for coming on tonight. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: the nfl preseason is back. that means a bunch of players are sitting down for the anthem again. now an espn commentators won't protest. jason whitlock is here. and the president will not be in the kennedy center honors is. anything in america safe from politics in this frenzy's moment? ian cane joins us.

we're waiting on the trump's afghanistan speech. fox will be there live at 9:00 p.m. stay tuned. i've been a soldier for 3 years. i've scaled the toughest terrain and faced plenty of my fears as part of my training. and for the past two years i've been a navy federal member. so even out here i can pay securely with mobile pay linked to my free checking account. i don't know about this, it's ... [screams] what did she say? she said "i don't know about this." i couldn't hear over my helmet. your ears are completely exposed. mm-hmm, yeah i just ... open to the armed forces, the dod, veterans and their families. navy federal credit union.

♪ hey, is this our turn? honey...our turn? yeah, we go left right here. (woman vo) great adventures are still out there. we'll find them in our subaru outback. (avo) love.

it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. get 0% apr financing for 63 months on all new 2017 subaru outback models. now through august 31. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

>> tucker: for a lot of people, this has been a welcome respite. last year colin kaepernick launched a trend during the national anthem. michael bennett of the seattle

seahawks. now white players won't join in the anthem protest. >> there's lots of white players in the nfl, stephen a. not one of them say i agree with this protest? none of them do? let's say none of them do. the issue is larger now. now it's also an issue of solidarity with your co-workers, right? so some of whom are feeling very bad about the way things are. with your fellow americans who are feeling very bad -- all americans right now have good will, very upset about recent events. >> tucker: jason whitlock is a commentator for fox sports 1. jason, i guess why people are mad at certain politicians and certain circumstances. it's legitimate. why is the way to express that attacking the country itself? >> i don't understand it myself, tucker. listen, max kellermann is a good friend of mine.

i have a lot of respect for max. max is complaining how come no one is supporting colin kaepernick? i want to understand why nfl players are not offering voices of dissent? there's nfl players, black and white, that know if you really want to address police brutality, social injustice, inequality in this country, protesting the national anthem is the perfect way for your message to get completely lost. if colin kaepernick or any of these players, if you're a starting nfl quarterback, you have a huge platform and the opportunity to on any tv, radio show you want, any newspaper, magazine article you want and you can legitimately voice your complaints, if you protest during the national anthem, of course there's going to be a massive amount of people that never hear a word you say, won't understand your message at all

and you can't tell me that there aren't nfl players that recognize the stupidity of the style of protest colin kaepernick has chosen but they're all afraid to see it because of the backlash. so again, the cowardess or the real feel is the craziness is where it comes from. >> tucker: there's a lot of afraid people in this country i'd argue so you follow this closely. how true is it that the protests affect viewership? >> i'm not sure. there's a lot of research on that that we've done here at fox sports that say mostly it was the election cycle or predominantly the election psych that will affected viewership. but in the protests continue, i think it's going to impact

viewership. because i think it's all -- the regular sports fan doesn't get it. you're protesting the national anthem. how is that the best way to get the point across about equality? it's not for the event to be hijacked by politics. it's not for the event from the national anthem, from the beginning of the event to have this kind of contention and problem. sports have always been about bringing people together for a fun event. it's always been about racial unity and looking past your differences to achieve some athletic goal. kaepernick has turned this into something else. i don't think it's effective for getting his message out and i don't think it's consistent with the principles of sports and what nfl football has been about as a television event. >> tucker: you're right.

there's a new piece at "the atlantic." it says that silicon valley has taken over journalism and ruining it with click bait and maximizing traffic. espn is doing its part. they're fanning these feuds instead of covering sports. you think that is a fair critique? you think silicon valley is affecting news that is bad? >> no question, tucker. you and i talked about this several months ago. i was very thrilled to see the atlantic write this piece because i want the left side of the media to talk about this. look, the media used to be obsessed with new york and new york liberal values. i think everybody understood that. now it's dominated by silicon valley, northern california and san francisco values. that is a completely different anim animal. that is a revolutionary animal, an animal that doesn't believe in this country. when you look at google,

facebook, twitter, instagram, in order to really be popular and to be represented in those spaces, the silicon valley spaces, you have to be extreme left wing. they are trying to silence any of us that are moderate or to conservative and those voices can't even be heard over these silicon valley social media machines that the rest of the media is addicted to. it's had an amazing influence on the media and the racial division we're seeing in the country. >> tucker: and an undercover one. thanks for being here, jason. one of the smartest. america is a divided country. so divided the president couldn't participate in the kennedy center honors. actor den cane is here to tell us how that happened and our coverage of the president's speech that begins in less than an hour. we're on it. stay tuned.

a penny has never been more valuable. it's our back to school one cent event at office depot office max. 10 pack pens, one cent. composition notebooks,scissors, and plastic folders all one cent each! hurry to office depot office max. ♪taking care of business. cameras. introducing the newly redesigned gla suv. at a price that'll make you feel like you've gotten away with something. the 2018 gla. lease the gla250 for $359 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

>> tucker: the battle between hollywood and president trump. hollywood has won a' round at least. the president announced he's will be skipping the kennedy center honors award. usually the white house has reception prior to the event. and on saturday, the white house

announced the president was backing out. the fourth time a president has skipped the honors in 40 years. dean cane is an actor and director and joins us tonight. dean, is this a political event? >> it's not normally a political event. far be it from folks in the entertainment industry to politicize a celebration like that. with the oscars, they've done it with about everything. at this point in time, hollywood has turned so against this president, it's so envogue to be against him. kudos to president trump and the trump family for just stepping out, taking the politics out of it for now. i'm sure he will here and earful about it when the honors happen. >> i keep wondering, hollywood has been liberal. music business, the same thing. most artists are. art requires free thinking. you can't be trapped within tight parameters and be creative. i wonder if there's a thought in hollywood about this kind of

group think is having on art? >> oh, i don't think they think about it. it's so interesting. used to be you're the rebel, rebelling against the ideas and this sort of thing. now you're true rebels are those that support the president. so if you support the president and his policies, you're such a radical and what a rebel you are. hollywood is looked into a strong group think right now. when i get into a conversation about policies i might support of the presidents, it's immediately met with the most crazy vitriol. they say the president is a nazi. i said no, i don't believe he's a racist or nazi or collusion with russia. they look at me like i'm an alien. >> tucker: i used to hear actors plane that you would get less work if you didn't tow the line.

but now it seems like, correct me if i'm wrong, if you came out for the president, could you get work in hollywood right now? >> well i'm working still. it's interesting. i don't support every policy of the president. i don't support every policy of my own. if you like one thing and you support him, you're aligned with that. i've been able to work because i've been established. i'm sure there's forces at work that aren't real happy that i would say these things. it's crazy. i'm not saying anything really that is that radical and policies that i support. yet, it can affect some people's work. you hear -- i mean, i'm on super girl. i said some things and people on twitter were so angry that i said things that didn't line up with the group think and that they were screaming to throw me off the show. it hasn't happened. but i never anticipated that being a possibility. >> tucker: it's amazing,

especially since trump is by far the most liberal president to be elected, by far. so you'd think -- he was in show business for so long. what is it about him that drives hollywood people into hysteria? >> well, i think the president is sometimes a very inartful speaker. i think he says things off the cuff. i think that some of those things offense a lot of people's sinceabilities. president obama was a suave, smooth speaker. sounded great. i didn't like his policies but sounded fantastic and had a great demeanor. president trump doesn't have as president bush before him wasn't a great speaker. so they vilify -- we're in hollywood. they expect that training. president trump gives them truth that they don't want to hear. he's rough and gruff and on twitter that are unartful. i don't agree with some things all the time but it's the

policies that i like. i think that's why they're lined up so hard against him. they really want him to fail. they really want to be against him. they don't want him to succeed. i don't understand that. if he succeeds, the country succeeds. >> tucker: they're so threatened by him. you need to be a shrink to understand it. i'm not. dean cane, thanks for coming on. good for both of us, by the way. >> thank you. >> tucker: up next, eclipse mania swept the nation as millions headed outside to take a look at the first total solar eclipse in mainland america. the path of totality ran from oregon to south carolina. almost the entire country saw 60% of the sun covered up by the moon. even the president saw it, but in a move that is not a complete surprise, he looked at the sun without any glasses. perhaps the most impressive thing any president has done. if you missed out, don't despair. the next eclipse is seven years from now. we'll cover it here on fox.

maxine waters has it in for ben carson. huh? why is that? because he works for president trump? or is there another reason she hates him so much? we'll discuss it next. and the president's speak on afghanistan is coming up the top of the hour. we'll be there life as soon as it begins. ♪ it's time for the biggest sale of the year with the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you effortlessly comfortable. and snoring.... does your bed do that? the new 360 smart bed is part of our biggest sale of the year where all beds are on sale. and right now save 50% on the labor day limited edition bed. theto me than my vacation.tant so when i need to book a hotel,

i want someone who makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. c'mon, gary! your vacation is very important. that's why booking.com makes finding the right hotel for the right price easy. visit booking.com now to find out why we're booking.yeah! ♪ the great beauty of owning a property is that you can create wealth through capital appreciation, and this has been denied to many south africans for generations. this is an opportunity to right that wrong. the idea was to bring capital into the affordable housing space in south africa, with a fund that offers families of modest income safe and good accommodation. citi® got involved very early on, and showed an enormous commitment. and that gave other investors confidence. citi's really unique, because they bring deep understanding of what's happening in africa.

i really believe we only live once, and so you need to take an idea that you have and go for it. you have the opportunity to say, "i've been part of the creation of over 27,000 units of housing," and to replicate this across the entire african continent.

only new tena intimates has ♪ it'pro-skin technologyiend designed to quickly wick away moisture to help maintain your skin's natural balance. for a free sample, call 1-877-get-tena. no need with thending thcars.com app when on the lot, scan a vin to pull up all the info you need to help get the price you want. start scanning today. ♪ it's happening, it's happening!

in the modern world, you can control just about anything with an app. your son is turning on all the lights again! and with the esurance mobile app, you can do the same thing with your car insurance. like access your id card, file a claim, or manage your policy. it's so easy it's almost scary. let's get outta here! that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. >> tucker: maxine waters has struck again. the congresswoman has become a celebrity for willingness to say bizarre things that seem at times untethered from reality. she has a particular dislike for hud secretary ben carson. she vowed to take apart his rear end. now she's vowing further harassment. watch this. >> ben carson. he has to come before my committee.

you wait. >> tucker: so what exactly about ben carson makes maxine waters so mad? is it hud policies or something else? we have jumani williams here. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: i don't know if you talked to ben carson. a lot of you probably don't agree with some of the things he says but he couldn't a nicer man, more gentle person. you saw him in the debates. hard to think of anybody being mad at ben carson. and maxine waters is focused on him. what is that about? >> in a case like this for me, it was a case of don't learn who your heros are. ben carson was a hero of mine when i was younger and i speak for a lot of young black men are disappointed to see where he is and his ideology and policy. i wrote and op-ed that said that this man shouldn't be the head of hud. i believe he was put there

because he has some melanin in his skin. the bigger issue about trump -- >> tucker: wait a second. that is an awful thing to say about somebody. do you have any evidence for that? >> for me seems no other reasons for a man that was clearly unqualified, had no experience in housing at all whatsoever. when you have the words "urban" in it to put somebody with melanin in their skin. that was enough for me. yes can disagree. >> tucker: i'm not disagreeing. i'm challenging you. you're attacking his qualifications. you're calling him a quota hire. >> his qualifications are clear that he had none for hud. >> tucker: no. jack kemp was hud secretary. he had no background in housing. he was a fine housing secretary. he was white. you wouldn't attacked him the same way. you're attacking this man on the basis of his race. it's not fair. >> and he says he's not agreeing with everything that hud is

supposed to do. so with that, he's wholly unqualified -- >> tucker: you have to agree with everything an ansy does before he runs it? >> no. >> tucker: is there something specific? housing policy? >> one he said poverty is choice. two, he's trying to roll back the fair housing programs that were put under the previous administration. recently he knocked down 40 buildings in illinois and put 400 people in homelessness. he's talk about the policies of hud specifically and said he doesn't agree with them. he had no experience in this field. he's a brilliant surgeon. i'm sure he's a wonderful father. being put where the word "urban is" is clear why. >> tucker: you don't know why. i guess i -- seems so unfair. it's sort of the way clarence thomas was treated when he went to the supreme court. there's lots of people --

>> no. clarence thomas -- >> tucker: no, he was attacked because he was black by african american leaders that said -- >> clarence thomas was an attorney. >> tucker: but there's nobody hated more than clarence thomas because he was seen as a traitor somehow. it's an unfair stance. >> the maxine waters question was the original question. for me, where we are, we have to be honest. to me, the hud -- the trump administration particularly much of the conservative agenda, we have to ask why people who believe in neo-nazis and why people that believe in supremacy support those agendas and support those ideologies and those agendas. ben carson of those that support it. it's a problem. >> tucker: so is ben carson a white supremacist too? >> no. i believe he and many others around him support the same things that supremists and nazis support. >> tucker: is that ben carson's fault? maybe he believes what he

believes. why are you trying to tar him with white supremacy? >> that's fine. as long as the nazis and supremists believe them because of their policies -- >> tucker: do you know what mccarthyism was? smearing people unfairly with the beliefs of those they had nothing in common with. >> this is not -- >> tucker: hold on. did you know -- you're a vegetarian. so is adolph hitler. are you a nazi? it's insane. >> the policies of the right oftentimes exclude people and keep them in oppression. we have been saying that for quite some time. >> tucker: really? >> that's why the nazis support those views and policies. lee at water -- >> tucker: how many people were shot in chicago last weekend. 63 people were shot in chicago. almost all of them african

american. republicans didn't do that. i wonder why nobody -- hold on. >> i want to talk about guidelines -- gun violence kills more people than terrorism. so people on your show talk about one thing. i would love to talk about gun violence. >> tucker: i wonder -- people picked up guns and shot other people. >> i understand that. what i said -- >> tucker: you never here anybody mention that. it's not gun violence. it's people killing other people. >> people using guns to per for violence. >> knives or whatever. but you don't seem to care because you want to politicize -- >> tucker: they made it clear. they could say they could no longer use the n word so they have to talk about policies that hurt the black community. we see it now. >> tucker: i just wonder if anything that you're saying improves the lives of anyone. >> great. now what we have -- i'm being sincere -- let me say it.

we need to be honest about what we're doing so we can move forward. >> tucker: you need to scare the crap out of constituents so they can learn how they're making their lives better. >> we have to move forward -- >> tucker: you represent a poverty striken violent part of new york. when people -- when your constituents -- >> people believe in exclusion. what we have to do is knock that down. >> tucker: i'm not for exclusion at all in any way. i'm saying it's easier -- >> i know the policies -- >> tucker: you're accusing me of racism all you want. >> the policies i'm talking about -- >> tucker: i got it. changing the subject again. anybody that criticizes you is a racist. it's easy for politicians like you to say that don't ask questions -- >> i'm very excited that history is going to exonerate people who are talking like me and frown on people that are speaking like you. >> tucker: now i'm worried,

councilman. i should be the considering the way the country is going. i get it. i get it. thanks. president trump's speech is minutes from now. what the president is likely to say and will he sell his strategy to the country? our experts take a crack at that question next. phone with our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness.

so the incredibly minor accident that i had tonight- four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.

>> tucker: we're minutes away from the president's first major foreign policy speech. this one on afghanistan. he's expected to announce a new military strategy in that country that will include a surge of 4,000 american troops. will it work and will congress and the american public buy it? douglas mcgregor is a retired

colonel, john davidson joins us tonight as well. so colonel, from what you know of what the president is going to announce tonight, do you think it's sufficient to meet whatever goal we have in afghanistan? >> no. i think we're going to watch donald trump transform in real time on television into barack obama. he's going to essentially do what barack obama did several years ago, capitulate to what the generals want and what the washington establishment prefers, which is to continue the long war. this time instead of 40,000 troops, it's 4,000. you can send 600,000 and would change nothing on the ground in afghanistan. >> so john, this doesn't sound like something that the president during the campaign would have been for. do you sense that his view afghanistan has changed a lot in last year? >> i think it may have. part of that is because of the people that he's surrounded

himself since he's taken office. general mattis, m.r. mcmaster. really, the step to announce new troop deployments in afghanistan may be the step in the right direction. hopefully it's a first step and away from the obama administration's policy of ignoring terrorist safe havens. that's what led to the rise of isis and led to a resurgence taliban in afghanistan. in order to reverse that, we have to get serious against afghanistan. hopefully this is the first step and not the whole story. >> colonel, why would generals that have seen war be pushing for a continuation of the longest war in american history? >> we call this war, but strictly speaking, it's not been a war. a war is a decision. they are fought with a permanent end state in mind. have a serious goal, a vision. we never had that in any of these open-ended interventions.

we've vacillated between nation building and counter insurgency and fighting insurgents with no defenses. these generals are doing what they have learned over the last 16 years and what has gotten them promoted. we know how that will turn out. we have a serious of failures that we can point to. this isn't going to work. remember, pakistan is a sanctuary. iran was a sanctuary for what happened in iraq. we're not willing to go to war. the american people have no interest to go to war with pakistan to save afghanistan. so trump should get out. he said get out when he was a candidate. barack obama thought we should get out. both men will have buckled, become weak-kneed and gong along with getting out. if we get out, we'll stop

protecting iran's eastern flank and rush's western flank. pakistan is building jihadists to go to russia and attack iran. we just need to get out of the way. they need to engage. it's their region. we have no interest whatsoever to stay there in perpetuity and try to fix something that can't be fixed. >> john, we spoke to eric prince earlier in the hour that spent a lot of time in afghanistan. had a lot of employees there. it's his view that this war long, unsuccessful is being pinned on trump by the washington establishment. they say you take responsibility for it. it's your war now. what do you make of it? >> it is his war now. he's president. but i think the worst thing he could do is to continue the policies of the obama

administration. i think some historical context is in order here, too. the reality is, obama inherited a pacified iraq in 2009. the surge put us in control. we threw that away and obama did the same in afghanistan by withdrawing troops prematurely in 2014. we need to go back and rediscover the less son of 9-11 that the bush administration adopted which is you cannot allow terrorist safe havens to persist overseas. they become threats here at home. at the risk of sounding like a neoconservatism, that means supporting the troops in afghanistan, helping them to stand up and take control of the territory in afghanistan piecemeal if need be and that's what we did in iraq. >> tucker: thanks, john.

thanks, colonel. that's about it for us tonight. fox will be covering the president's speech. pick up our special coverage on fox news right now. see you tomorrow.

senior u.s. officials tell us that the president who has had competing voices on this throughout the course of the conversations is going to call for an increase of at least 4,000 troops to afghanistan. >> with the focus on pressuring countries in the region, most notably pakistan, to step up. candidate trump often called the war in afghanistan a total disaster, a waste of time and resources. now. trump with no easy answers is investing more after 16 plus years on the ground. >> so joining us now for what we can expect to hear, general jack keane and jillian turner, former national security council staffer under presidents george

>> it's the member of the 4,000 number and the fact president trump said time and time again he wanted us out of afghanistan. are you surprised by the move? >> i'm not surprised because he has to convince the american people this is clearly in u.s. vital interest. that's the driving force behind this. his predecessors frankly never committed themselves politically and morally to have a successful strategy. that's the second big thing we need to get from the president tonight. not just why but what does a regional strategy look like. what does a strategy in afghanistan look like that has some measurement of success. he's got to lay that out and has to be convincing. >> 8400 u.s. troops currently on the ground in afghanistan, $714 billion spent, 2,258 total

deaths, 227,000 total wounded. and today more than 11% of that country in taliban or insurgent control. those are not good numbers. >> and i've had a feeling of déjà vu as if it's 2009 all over again with president obama faced much the same decision as president trump today or was in front of him over the last couple weeks. think the most important thing about the speech it will be specific to afghanistan and how president trump sees it to the region and in the world. we'll get the president trump doctrine. >> what do you think the difference is? we're waiting to hear the speech but knowing what we know about it is it the pressure component

on pakistan. it's not the number obviously. >> it's not the numbers but what is different today is not to be master of the obvious but we're eight years further into this war in a nation that two presidents now have ran on the grounds -- on a campaign platform issue of drawing down. no one so far has really been able to do that. if president trump wants to be the one to do that at the end of four or eight years he'll make the first move tonight. >> the fight against islamic extremist which this began in gun has taken the shape in recent days in barcelona and brussels. i think many see the fight has changed in terms of what affects us at home. >> we're in a change with radical islam. this area we're dealing with one-fifth of all the terrorist organizations in the world operate here in afghanistan and

pakistan. and pakistan has nuclear weapons. not just large nuclear weapons but fact -- tactical artillery weapons. >> there's pause for a reset at the top of the hour. this is a fox news alert. live coverage of president trump's address to the nation. his first prime time address in which the president will announce his administration's new afghanistan policy. delivering the speech in front of u.s. service members up the road at fort myer, virginia. i'm brett behr. >> i'm martha mccallum. the president is expect to ask india and pakistan t