tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. this will mark the 10th year of the american combat operations in afghanistan, a war that has lasted longer than world war i, world war ii, and the korean war combined. this war has cost more than $100 billion per year, and some of america's brightest military minds about the war is even winnable. tonight, a conversation of what has become the longest war in u.s. history with former assistant secretary of defense and vietnam veteran bing west. in his book, he offers a speeding critique and says the u.s. military should not be in the business of nation-building.

his new book is called "the wrong war." our conversation with bing west coming up right now. >> all i know is his name is james, and he needs extra help with his reading. >> i'm james. >> yes. >> to everyone making a difference, you help us all live better. >> nationwide insurance supports tavis smiley. with every question and answer, nationwide insurance is happy to help tavis improve financial literacy and remove obstacles to economic empowerment one conversation at a time. nationwide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television]

tavis: as i mentioned at the top, the war in afghanistan is in its 10th year, making it the longest in u.s. history. among those who question u.s. currency and policy for years now is bing west. his new book on the subject is called "the wrong war." in writing about the book in the new york times, a veteran military correspondents said this, ""the wrong war" is a crushing an irrefutable critique of the american plan in afghanistan. it should be read by anyone who wants to understand why the war there is so hard." i want to start with what you told me. i asked about iraq, back in

2008. i want to start with what he said about iraq and the transition to afghanistan before we come back to this new book, "the wrong war." winning it in iraq now means what, as you define it? >> it is a level of stability with violence that the iraqis can handle without us and without the country falling apart or getting under the control of iran, and we're just about there. that is quite different of saying we're going to have a wonderful democracy. that is not our business. i hope that my book is a warning to anybody. if you read this book and understand how hard we had to work. now we have both presidential candidates saying we have to do more in afghanistan, and i am saying, i am all in favor of that, but let's have our eyes wide open about afghanistan because it is one to be even harder than iraq.

tavis: afghanistan harder than iraq, that is what you said in 2008. the good news is that we had different suits and ties. the bad news, for me at least, i am not so sure that things are any better in afghanistan. the bad news is you are right, afghanistan is going to be harder, but i am sure that is no consolation. >> no, i have been over there eight different occasions, with our units in the south, and up in the north. the problem that i see is exactly like iraq, only on steroids. we're trying to do too much. on the one hand, we're trying to build a nation. on the other hand, we are trying to fight terrorists. i think we have to focus on why we are there and just to the military mission, stopping terrorists, not trying to bring afghanistan into the 21st

century. tavis: why are we trying to do both? >> in my judgment, in all due deference, it started with president bush, with his belief based on his religious beliefs that you had to bring liberty to people. no, you don't. people should fight for their own liberty. then we went from bad to saying we have to use the military to build other nations. i don't think we do. the military is a 14 -- the military is a fighting organization. tavis: you mentioned president bush, who got us into this mess to begin with, but there are critics who are making it very clear that president obama is not that much different on these issues than president bush. if you pay attention, the last couple days, republicans have

been after the president on the domestic agenda. they have not said a lot about his foreign policy, because in many ways, critics are suggesting he is doing the same way, more of what bush did, more troops in afghanistan, more drones and aft -- more groans in pakistan. i am wondering about your observations? >> the same. at some point, the president has to call the national security council and say, what are we doing? he said we're not doing full- scale counterinsurgency or nation-building, but those are negatives. then what are we supposed to be doing? my objection is the same as it was towards president johnson, starting the great society. we have given so much money now to the afghans that they expect money from us, and we have created a culture of

entitlement. i don't see that as what we should be doing, and that is not the mission of the military. i have spent most of my book trying to explain what our military does. then i leave that up to the reader to decide for themselves how we should cut back. i have my recommendations, which is we don't need as many troops, we should not be spending all the money we're spending because we're not getting anywhere, and we should keep a lot of pressure on the taliban. but in the end, we should be building up the afghan soldiers to fight their own war. tavis: the argument the obama administration has been making is we need to get out of iraq and send troops to afghanistan. when we got diverted from afghanistan to iraq, the taliban and al qaeda were able to get back to work in afghanistan, and we have to reassess what has happened there and go back and get this situation on the control. and that is why we need to put

more troops into afghanistan. you don't buy that? >> i don't, because we went far beyond that. our troops are good fighters, but after they're finished fighting, they are also required to give economic aid to the afghan people, then they're required to help set up the government at the district level. at that particular point i say, wait, we should not be using the military to do that. we don't have to do all of those tasks. we have taken on nation- building, and that is too far. tavis: do we need more soldiers, president obama's point, to get back under control what we allowed to go awry when we left afghanistan to focus on iraq? >> there are two different aspects to that. what i saw in the south, two weeks ago, is the marines are pushing the taliban right out of the areas where nobody thought that to be pushed out. but that is flat down south.

in the mountains in the north, i am very suspicious as to what is happening on the border with pakistan, because it is a different fighting style. but on either scale, i think we have done about what we can with our 100,000 troops and it is time to start cutting back and letting the afghans do it instead of us. tavis: they don't think that this war as it is being fault is winnable. it is not winnable, but we have to be there. let me square those things. >> i have no problem doing that at the ground level. at the ground level, we need enough troops there so the terrorists can never take control of the capital. never. that number of troops i say is under 40,000, because we are terrific on the battlefield. now if somebody says, i want you by the definition of winning to have a wonderful new country in afghanistan that does not have

corruption, good government, etc., i don't think we can do that. i have no problem saying i know how to do the military mission. but then if you say, what about all of afghanistan, no, that is a bridge too far. just say we're not having terrorists take over here. tavis: let me circle back. three years ago i asked your definition of winning in iraq. we're talking now about winning in afghanistan. what does it mean for us now in afghanistan? >> winning, to me, is defined by we have done enough so that our troops come back home on a regular basis, at no more surge, and that the afghans, the afghan army is able to stand up for themselves against the taliban. if somebody says what about the fact that karzai is a balm and cannot get things done, i say, hey, that is none of my

business. that could still remain a mess. it may not turn out perfectly, but if we prevent the terrace from taking over, that is enough. -- but if we prevent the terrorists from taking over, that is enough. tavis: the president is hearing from critics, and the democratic party at their annual meeting last week passed a resolution -- his party passed a resolution encouraging him to get out of afghanistan quicker. they're pressing now on afghanistan. i raise that because he is hearing it from a lot of different people. what are they not hearing? obviously what you are saying, others are saying about the war not been winnable, the strategy is wrong, too many trips, etc., the people are around him are telling him something different, and he is talking with experts. why is he hearing that?

>> i would be careful, because i bet if we were having this conversation next september we would see the administration and military have come closer to my point of view that now. i think we will semi-declare victory this summer and after that start pulling out. i believe on the ground, that is the truth that we can do that. for a tactical reason, and i have been on the battlefield for years, but we have never before been able to link the air with the people on the ground to the degree we do now. we have unmanned aerial vehicles in fighter aircraft overhead that give better pictures than what you see at the super bowl, and that gives our forces on the ground a terrific advantage when they're fighting anybody. i was there two weeks ago and we were getting fire from one of our flanks.

the sergeant on the ground is talking to a man over the radio. he says i see them on the roof, 300 meters from you, one of them with a long rifle. you want me to take them out? the sergeant says, i take them out. the next thing i know this fighter jet comes by and strafes fire. they say, i got him, you will not get any more fire from that sniper. that is incredible we have that linkage, and i don't think we need near as many troops. i think we will see that happening this summer. tavis: your response to those who say when we pull out, all hell will break loose? your response is? >> no, because that is not the nature of the enemy. the enemy we are fighting, the taliban, or equivalent to the apaches in the 1860's. they are good, cunning fighters,

but they keep their distance. a fire from undercover, but is not a big army. they're fighting in small groups, using motorcycles, just like the indians in our country used to use all forces. they're not a big threat to a major city. they can be taken on by forces that are much smaller. i believe that we can let the afghans handle this because we have such fantastic air. tavis: your a vietnam veteran. -- you are a vietnam veteran. >> marine. tavis: there have been so many comparisons between vietnam and afghanistan. when the comparison was first made, ted kennedy when he was alive made that comparison. he got concern from a lot of different people. i have heard other people make that comparison. what is your sense of that comparison now between vietnam

and afghanistan? >> i think vietnam is ancient history, and it is hard to make the comparison even though i thought there. the way we treat our troops today is terrific. the troops know it and appreciate it, and that is not the case in the past. this country has a vibrancy to it that is terrific. we are able to distinguish between missions we may not like as individuals, and still represent a fine view towards our people, towards our soldiers and marines and say, god bless you. the one thing i see a similarity, and i bring this out, in vietnam, land mines were a problem. in afghanistan, this is cost -- this is called an improvised explosive device. this is the single biggest killer of our forces. all it is is one wire goes to an

explosive and the other wire goes to a battery, flashlight battery, and when you put them together and you are walking along, if you step on this, it makes the connection, and the explosive goes off. the first patrol i was on two weeks ago, the marine at point found four of these devices as we were moving along. tavis: they look so simple. >> what is extraordinary, our soldiers and marines go out every single day knowing they will bump into that, and they stay with the mission every single day. that takes long-term career. because they know they will bump into them. it is not a question of if, it is a question of when. tavis: tell me, it in the book, 10 years later, in this war, what are these officers, the soldiers doing? >> what our soldiers do every

day, story after story, in the mountains and down south, they go out to push back the intimacy. i understand that. that is a military mission. then they are giving every -- they are giving millions of dollars to the locals and helping them build projects. then they go into the districts and say to the governor, we will help you with governments of this area. at that particular point, we have moved far beyond the military mission. our soldiers simultaneously our project engineers, governors, and fighters. i say to myself, as much as i love our soldiers and i know we can do all of this, why are we doing all of this? we have gone too far. winn't believe we will ever the hearts and minds of the tribes over there.

most of them are hurtling headlong into the 10th century. they will accept evewhatever we give to them. but we should expect them to stand up for themselves. tavis: tell me why you think that military and military operations and diplomatic operations cannot coexist. why can't they work together? >> the issue is a little bit. when i find a battalion commander spending more than 50% of his time on economics or governments, i say, stopped, we have gone over the line. he has forgotten what his primary mission should be. tavis: is that not preferred to fighting and losing officers? if you wire winning hearts and minds, which i assume means when not losing the lives of soldiers, it isn't that good?

>> is perfect if that is what was happening. you just articulated the true social contract. we go to a villager some place and say, we will give you some protection, money, governance, and return you the people must reject the taliban, you must tell us with the taliban are, and you must betrays someone. common sense, the people say i will take all the money it can give me, i will take all the protection, but you are not if you think i will keep that part of the bargain. we have created a theory of counterinsurgency in afghanistan that is wrong. that is not what we did in vietnam and it is not what turned the tide in iraq. what is going to happen in afghanistan is a showdown that a showdownwin. the showdown will be between the afghan security forces and the

taliban. they always say, we believe the taliban will come back once the americans pull out. that is the acid test. i hope people really understand that and get to that point. tavis: i want to ask specifically about a soldier, and the soldiers. tell me about corporal meyer. >> extraordinary individual. i hope that he gets the medal of honor. this is classic. he was in a battle in a valley where they were trapped. 200 people were trapped. they were under such intense fire that the taliban commander was saying over the radio, he was talking to them and saying, we killed the russians, we can kill you, but if you put your weapons down, you can live. his commander was evacuated from

the battlefield. 21 years of age. he came forward and said, we will take those positions. he personally charge, by himself, against the fortified positions not once, not twice, five times. why he is still alive is just a miracle. the commander on the other side who was taunting them at first towards the end of the battle was saying, stop that man. he turned the entire battle by himself. that is incredible and i hope that he gets the medal of honor. tavis: to my final question, i know that the soldiers serve, they protect, they save, they protect our way of life. i get that. my father was in the military, airforce. i know they will do their job, as you have made the point. but since she spends so much time with them, what do they

really think -- but since you spend so much time with them, what do they really think? what do they really think about what they're being asked to do? >> they never looked at the bigger picture. god bless them, they are their own little tribes and they say, i will get my job done. i think at the lower levels, they are skeptical about winning hearts and minds, but they will be the taliban. they are so rambunctious, and their spirit, it is terrific to watch them on the battlefield. if you said to them, why do you do this, it would give you a thousand excuses. they do it because they believe they are our guardians, but it would never say such things. they will always give another reason. but they like the rough life. that is why they volunteered. the enlistments in afghanistan, reenlistments are harder than

they are in the united states. they're doing what they like to do. if you let them fight, that is fine. it is when you put them into peacekeeping that the morale is not as high. tavis: what about the loss of afghan lives, the innocent women and children? what about their losses? >> it is just hard. but i have to say that the people who really get me angry are the people who set savage devices so that any child, woman, farmer who walks by it is killed just as innocently as anybody else. we found one of these in the middle of a former's field, just by accident. -- in the middle of a farmer's field, just by accident. when i look at the balance of the castle is that will happen just because you are at war and those who would be putting people deliberately at risk, i

would say the taliban are real s.o.b.'s. tavis: the obama administration says we're going to be in afghanistan even longer than he thought when he first ran. we were talking about during the campaign, and the president has changed his own view. i ask why you think there is a way out and that there is a timeline acceptable to the american people for us to get out. >> because i have a lot of faith in our commanders to get together this summer with the president and the president will say, you told me two years and we would see something, and i believe the military commanders will say, sir, we have achieved what we wanted to with the surge, we will begin to pull out. not entirely, but absolutely pulling out to the degree that

afghanistan is on page 24, and we have half as many people there at half the cost we have today. tavis: your mouth to god's ears. the book is called "the wrong war." is written by new york times best selling author bing west. mr. west, could have you on the program. that is our show for tonight. thank you for tuning in. until next time, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for our conversation with actor anthony mackie on his latest project. that is next time. we will see you then. >> all i know is his name is james, and he needs extra help

with his reading. >> i'm james. >> yes. >> to everyone making a difference, you help us all live better. >> nationwide insurance supports tavis smiley. with every question and answer, nationwide insurance is proud to join tavis in working to improve financial literacy and remove obstacles to economic empowerment one conversation at a time. nationwide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--