effective. it is politically complex and it will save lives for our friends and allies. >> charlie: is it doable. >> definitely. actually we have wasted a big window of opportunity from 2002 almost up to 2009 which we could have had national security forces to a level that today we would have been comfortable with. but the actual that you had mentioned it had been the longest war but i really disagree with this concept

because up to 2007 and 8, afghan was an economy of first sector. there was no serious attempt to build a credible afghan security force. >> charlie: why was that? >> i think initially i think the estimate was unrealistically low. also, i think they have under estimated the international community the bending of a nation which was destroyed through three decades of conflict initially that were not sufficient afghan and international security forces to conduct a proper counter insurgency operation so the enemy actually had utilized that shortcoming. and we were not able to respond

efficiently. so the result is that the war escalated and then since 2008, we are having some serious attempt in building national security forces. >> charlie: what you have not said is that the administration, the previous administration may have been distracted by the iraq war. >> yes, that's what i tried to say that afghanistan was in an economy of sector all those years. and the national security forces,70,000 -- 60,000 were really low based on analysis of troops to task any other historic example. >> charlie: if in fact the united states had not gone to iraq to topple sadaam hussein and had focused on afghanistan and had built up the state of afghanistan and had pursued

al-qaeda in afghanistan, we would look at a very different situation today. >> i entirely agree with you. at the beginning when talibans were defeated with the help and support of the entire afghan nation in a very short time, it took them years, i mean, to regroup. so that all that time i think we could have spent more effectively to build afghan institutions and also very credible and strong national security force of the army and police both. >> charlie: you have said that that's your message to washington. >> yes. >> charlie: i think washington knows that. that's been the argument all awe long. the question is can they do it and can they do it by 2014 so they can withdraw american forces to a large extent?

>> actually after all these years for the first time in this past year, year and-a-half, we are conducting a proper counter insurgency with both military. >> charlie: the arrival of the american troops. >> yes. and withed -- it is already having that effect. with the a announcement of the new strategy, we have a proper vision to the future. we have crafted the right response to all the obstacles problems which we have identified.

so we are quite confident that if we sustain the effort, i think the final success. >> charlie: what will be a final success if, if you are able to sustain the effort? >> the final success will be that we have to stabilize afghanistan peaceful. i do believe once we are able to defend our nation ourself, i think the neighboring countries will actually recognize that reality and then they will be more willing to establish those mutually beneficial reslaitionz which we have sought since 2002.

and also it will pave the way for a better reconciliation and reintegration. >> charlie: you say those words reconciliation and reintegration, you're talking about the taliban reintroduced and reintegrated into society and government. that's what you would like to see and that's what's necesry. >> actually it will shorten our journey to our final destination considerably if we are able to reintegrate and reconcile. and i think that is possible once we create this perception that the stakes are high and we are able to sustain our country. >> charlie: on the ground today, general petraeus is

successful to what degree? >> he is successful. actually something, the people, i mean all those who are familiar with counterinsurgency operation, they should realize that the success and victory cannot be quick and swift like other type of warfare even if we apply the right strategy and the right forces and the right resources. so it will take time but we already see a good enough indicators. all the attempts and such unconventional warfare is the people. they get the support of the people then i think they will win. but in the moment of the focus

of the recent operation in this last six, seven months in afghanistan, i think we do see the indications of the campaign. because what has happened that now that we have managed to have a permanent presence of security forces in the local level and the people are assured that we are going to protect them and we are not there just temporarily like we used to in the previous years. and with that every day we get more support of the people. they are participating in different activities, researching and rebuilding even in security. and i will give you some figures to indicate that. for the last four to five months, what was happening that we are, with the help of the

people, we are neutralizing almost close to 5% of the ied because the people will show us where they are. >> charlie: people identify with i.e.d. which is the principal source of the loss of live. >>es. the other thing that is happening for example in the last three months of 2009, we have captured and discovered 163 cache's of arms and ammunitions. in the last three months the number went from that 163 to almost 1200. >> charlie: here's what's interesting about what you say, which is that you have to convince the people of afghanistan that the taliban is not going to win. you have to convince them that the government will be strong, that the government will not be corrupt and that the government

is able to sustain the position they achieve. >> yes. the first priority is that to be able to protect the people from the beginning after all those years i think the whole afghan nation will. and they were on the side of the afghan government definity. but they could have not demonstrated feeling because they couldn't protect them. with the little number of forces which we were clear in the area but we couldn't stay there and so they couldn't express themselves. but right now i think the moment once they are assured that we are there and also the government is trying to provide for them for means of reconstruction and jobs and all that, i think the support is coming stronger and stronger.

and the whole perception in those areas about security and the government is positively changing. >> charlie: why can't you get the pakistani government not to offer safe havens? to the afghan taliban? >> we are in continuous contact with them and we do believe that we both have now a common thread and a common task, common objective. and we should coordinate and the situation will impact some of those to deteriorating. and so i think we do see some good indications of that future prospect for more coordinations between our two nations. and it has been expressed in the last two meetings which we had

in the form of our apartheid and our chief of staff level and also -- >> charlie: apartheid would be pakistan, afghanistan and the united states. >> yes. we have this arrangement since 2006 that we have this meeting and the chief of staff -- in other meetings which is one level below. in the surface there is a lot of mechanism for coordination, intelligence sharing, sharing knowledge and thins with counter ied. but recently i think they are all argument that we have increased our cooperation and we are operating they will cooperate from their side. >> charlie: can you win without that. >> winning is there but it will

become much longer and more costly. >> charlie: that reminds me of the history of afghanistan. there is this argument that the united states should not be there because the history of afghanistan suggests that it's ungovernorrable. that a strong central government has been and will ever be. >> i think there are times that afghanistan was one of the peaceful countries in their most and it was really much -- >> charlie: but not a strong central government. wardak province among others. >> actually secure the history, it was always like that.

there was so much central government and it was supported by elements all over the country. then during the late 50's and 60's, the dimension changes because before that i think the country in the central government they had the same type of weapons system and things like that. but in 60's and mid 50's and 0's when the central government i think with a better army then i think there was not such a thing like that that was no central government. and throughout the history which we have a really long history, there have been i think great empires which have emerged and all of them have really strong central power. so i think this idea that we

never had a government -- >> charlie: everybody whose tried to have, being the most recent example dominion over afghanistan has failed. >> you see actually that concept of afghans in the graveyard of empires will not apply. here i have been asked this question before and i'm telling you first of all i think there's no comparison that you compared the americans. >> charlie: of course. >> freedom succeeded because of the hundred percent support of the afghan people and actually the afghans have invited through the 90's i think we were trying really hard to draw the attention of the community. nobody listened. but once unfortunately the

tragedy of 911 happened. after that we got that focus again. but actually all those years we wanted to do something so that it was afghan people who welcomed the u.s. >> charlie: after 911. >> after 911. it went so quickly. i myself i have contributed though i was not a part of the operation during freedom i contributed to at least more than a dozen provinces because the people were supporting the whole attempt. the thing is that -- let me, i explain this question. that the soviets came there to destroy the country. 250 wealth based on the

estimate. the international community, the coalition came to afghanistan so that should make a difference. the second thing, they came to, they came to impose a foreign ideology with the help of the international community were coming up with a government and leadership of our own choosing through election. so that is a big difference. and then also i think after all that suffering and misery which we have experienced in the 90's, we see when people see in the presence of the international forces. and also it's stopping the intervention of all those powers around us so the president is

stopping the interferences on some of the neighboring countries. >> charlie: what was your relationship with the northern to alliance and massud. >> once the war as over when we liberated kabul in 1992, i became the chief of staff. after the liberation, and he was defense minister. so we had really good relation and he has been friendly and i think we really appreciated it. even when the civil war started and i didn't want to be a part of it even in my absence he has been always very complementary and when the taliban came to kabul i was never replaced. my position was left. >> charlie: would it have been different circumstances if he survived. >> it would have helped,

definitely. >> charlie: what's your -- the president of afghanistan, president karzai, what's your relationship with him, what do you think of him and what do you make of all of stories of corruption on his part and his brother. >> actually he has been a friend. i know him from a very long time. we worked together in the 9 the 0's to come up with some sort of resistance against the taliban that was happening that were there. he is really a real patriot and no one will say that he's been corrupt. >> charlie: no one will say that.

>> that he himself. not at all, no. nobody can fine one single incidence of that he has been involved in any corruption. >> charlie: what about his family? >> the family is sometime i will tell you, i will be very plunlt about -- blunt about it, that sometimes political agendas have caused also people to be targeted to be able to gain some sort of -- >> charlie: surely you're not denying all these charges and saying it's simply politics, are you? you're not saying all the charges about specifically the president's brother arise out of politics. >> no, no i will tell you one thing. i have been present two, three times in a meeting that the

president have told international community if you have any evidence, any dumpation, bring it out. and the international community told him in my presence that we don't have any. >> charlie: what do you believe about corruption on the part of the president and brother? >> i'm not someone to know much to information because i'm too busy so i would not be able- >> charlie: it's not something you one to response to. >> what? >> charlie: it's not something you want to speak to. >> i think these areas are not my line of work, actually. >> charlie: there are stories that with the full contention of the american forces on the ground in afghanistan, they have and the policy of the counter counterinsurgency as you know

well, general petraeus has been able to expand that. in kandahar as well. >> we're trying to expand to link the two. >> charlie: it is also said that only like, that a lot of the problems are only a small part of afghanistan but a lot of afghanistan is secure. >> yes. >> charlie: and kabul would be one place. >> there are areas which we'll call it low threat. >> charlie: what's the significance of these recent highly visible taliban efforts in terms of the explosion and going into -- >> what i will say is you see the taliban have really suffered, i believe this, in the past year. >> charlie: because? >> because of the temple of the afghan national security forces

operation. and so they really suffer. and they have lost a lot of their sentras and now to compensate they come up with a sensational attack and causing these innocent civilian casualties. there has been a search in that support and we were expecting that once they cannot do anything else, then i think it will resort to this. >> charlie: so theylose on the battle ground and they use these highly dramatic events of blowing up civilians. >> and using multiple suicider with commander raid, combined with a commander raid and all that. >> charlie: so you think there is a sense on the part of the taliban that they're in trouble, that it's not necessarily going as well as it

was a year ago. >> i do believe, and i do believe also that there is some difference emerging between the taliban because the leadership never come here and the people here in afghanistan i don't think they are in good terms anymore. charlie: the dehaving between the people who are in safe haven in pakistan, omar and others. >> yes. >> charlie: and the people at the middle level. >> yes. >> charlie: who are directing the fighting in afghanistan. is a division. >> yes. >> charlie: and you believe you can reintegrate some of those people who are in afghanistan. >> i strongly believe that. strongly because all of these people who are fighting us, they are not, they are not ideaally converted. >> charlie: because of money.

>> there are differences. the biggest motivation for them is money because of the power. and that's big group is because they don't have a job, the taliban are paid. they have prices for different tivities, to put a minor to kill a teacher, international community coalition member. so that's that. there are others which there have been tribal rivalries. and also family rivalries. one side with the government, automatically went out of there. and the same way with the tribes. some has left because of the

misbehavior by the afghan government or the forces. so all of these different elements which i think those are the majority which have different type of grievance i think they are all very much and i think there are a lot of contact the process of the division is just beginning and i do hope and believe that this year we will be able to reintegrate a substantial number which will be able to make a difference. >> charlie: does that include those that are in port. >> there was the possibility of some of them. >> charlie: what's the level of negotiation today, negotiation between u.s. military, the afghan military, the karzai government and the taliban. >> actually i wouldn't say that

it is a very high level at the moment. they are all contacts which we comfort build on it in the future. >> charlie: you're not negotiating with anybody? >> if i do also i will not admit it here. >> charlie: nice try, though, wasn't it. but there are negotiations going on. >> yes, there are definitely. >> charlie: going to try to figure out how to stop the war not just reintegration. >> i think the mechanism has been in place. ment a group of people. they are doing it also. but pa side that i think in different level people who have contacts, they were all trying. >> charlie: we're talking about contact with senior taliban. >> i'm talking once i said integration, once i say

reconciliation it means senior. >> charlie: senior taliban leaders. >> yes. >> charlie: you think it has a possibility of success? >> and the reintegration. >> charlie: i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about reconciliation. >> yes. there is a possibility especially if, i will tell you if there is some improvement on the regional cooperation level, i think it will facilitate further the reconciliation. >> charlie: okay many tell me what regional the cooperation means. >> i mean for all those countries which would build a sanctuary, if they help contribute and just tell them you're not any more welcome, then the question will be is it all. >> charlie: for a military man you're speaking in diplomatic language. >> from time to time more with the innovation of politics.

>> charlie: yes. so when you continue to, when you look at it on the ground, you think the tide has turned? >> yes. >> charlie: but everybody agrees as you said here in your opening remarks with me, you got to have the afghan army be able to pick up the slack. >> yes. >> charlie: and yet i read about defections, attrition. it's not going as well as richard holbrook and others hoped. >> i don't see any serious problem. >> charlie: but you will acknowledge -- >> i will tell you. there was no problem in recruitment. >> charlie: army and police. >> yes. there is no problem in retention. i think we always meet the goal that 70% and sometime even last year up to 86%.

the people who fought i think they have fulfilled their contract of the three years. retention means they are recontracting. so that is not a problem. then the problem that you are referring, i mean there is no occasion that the afghan army have defected from the battlefield anyway. >> charlie: i'm not talking about -- okay. >> usually sometime i think when they go for their vacation they don't come back. >> charlie: what do you call that. >> so we call it attrition. so attrition is a combination of people killed in action, then wounded in action, sick. then it comes to this which we call it awol, absent without leave. there is a level which is accepted in any army for this

type. >> charlie: are you on that level. >> we are at the moment, last year i think many so months we were just exactly on it but some months we were higher. but the last two months we're trying really hard each month it is decreasing and the coming months in the future because of all that we have been doing, i mean to use different methodologies i think we will see a considerable improvement. i mean the whole issue is we are just about half a percentage point up and down. i mean not on the target but i do believe that i don't want to really care but all what we are doing i mean to improve it but it is not a serious issue. ment that with an army that's ahead of schedule. we are going to complete 191.--

before october it's 2011 and we have already done i think we completed this 1034,-- 13 4,000. i was ahead of the deadlines. if are the that serious then why should we be ahead of it, ahead of it by some three four, five months. >> charlie: so what is your level of expectation? what do you say to secretary gates about what level of american troops will need to be in a afghanistan in 2014. what do you tell him. >> it depends on how well we grow and what will be the next for the afghan national security forces. this is discussed right now in

the congress. >> charlie: you just said it depends on how well we do our job, whether the americans can leave. >> the thing is we have committed, i think president karzai has articulated in his inaugural speech that in the next three years we will take the lead of all operation, in the next five years with one year has passed now i think we will be responsible for the physical security of the country. >> charlie: in what we are? >> in 2014. and it will be then. so based on that, i mean this year i think you will see the transition of the security sometime when summer will start on the 21st of march there will be an announcement by president karzai that these provinces or these cities and districts security responsible will be taken over by the afghans.

and we are really vigorously working throughout afghan leadership and afghan ownership policy that we have agreed with the international community. so i do believe strongly that it will allow -- the other issue which is important that enablers which afghan security forces are lacking and they are relying on -- so that will clear an important rule how quick and how soon i think this can take. >> charlie: how many isep forces are there in afghanistan today? >> there are rougy about 150. >> charlie: 150,000. 10,000. how many of those are american. >> i think 100,000. >> charlie: 100,000 are

american. >> yes. >> charlie: do you believe that by 2014, the american commitment there can be reduced to say 25,000. >> actually men like me to predict the future, how the situation will develop will be very difficult to come up with an exact figure. but i think there will be the possibility that big numbers can be reduced. >> charlie: 25,000 reasonable then as a figure to lo forward to in 2014? >> it will directly depend, you see the point which i'm trying to say, the afghan army which has been built and gradually i think as we take more responsible for the security so we have to develop this force into a force which should be able to defend the nation.

for that we have to receive some of the enablers which now we are relying on isep. so those part of those enablers are in the future plans. >> charlie: here's my question. when is enough enough? when has the united states and forces given the afghan government enough time and paid enough price for you to develop your own ability to maintain order in those civic institutionsn your own country. that's the question. >> i think the situation will be quite different in 2014. we have committed. >> charlie: 2014 is reasonable time for the united states to say we've given them enough time needed. >> they've provided not only the time then they have to give us enablers also. >> charlie: enablers are? >> enablers are i think we need improvement in our fire power,

international fire power, we need improvement in our protected mobility with integrated fire power which will need some tanks. it will also need, as far as the air transportation and support of the ground troops and also the absence of the isep then we have secured our air space. >> my impression is a lot of the support that was in iraq has been moving to a began stan, the kinds of things they need to support the effort. that they are building up or not. >> what i'm trying to say, i don't know how much isep has to build up. i'm talking about afghan national security forces. >> charlie: so you come to washington, you meet with the secretary of defense and you say we made need support beyond 2014 which is a date that everybody

has pointed. that seems to be what you, the headline of your request of the united states. >> no. what is important to say it, you see. is that i will talk now professionally from counter insurgency. cal tan are simple people. they are very sophisticated, expert of 21st century insurgency. they are applying the 21st century insurgency sum plementd by the modified version -- and that mean that instead of like in other attempts you have one center of gravity you focus. they focus on several centers of

photographity which are separate but united purpose. so with the expectation that one or two of them will work. so one of these is breaking the will of the international community. and if that happens, their assumption is that sooner or later the international community will get fed up, they will run out of patience and they will leave once again like they did and they were counting on it. so there is a requirement to reassure our joint enemies that after 2014 also the support will be there. there will be support so that they cannot have take advantage of the situation.

it can be done by having a strategic enduring partnership. >> charlie: i hear you. the argument has been made if in fact there is not a specific time set, the afghan government will not necessarily have sufficient urgency to bld up its own sustainable force. you've heard that before. >> that is not true. i'm telling you that -- >> charlie: if you think it will be forever -- >> not at all. we don't want to be a burden on the international community more than a necessary. we want to relieve you from the blunt of fighting. i think the first time in our history that somebody else is, our friends and allies have come to help us defend the country or

secure the country. and it is against our honor asa true afghan blood is shed. we were proud throughout the history that we defended that country against overwhelming odds against every super power, again every conqueror and now this is the first time. so we really want to be helped to restore our pride and honor to be abl to defend that country like we defended it for 5,000 years. so now i think the policy of afghan ownership and afghan leadership is directed to that, and we will be doing everything possible, i mean, to relieve the burden from the international community. we will not take it easy that

you are going to be there permanently and we will just be nothing to improve the situation. that is totally beyond the question. we are really grateful and indebted, i mean, to the international community, particularly the united states. we acknowledge their sacrifices, we recognize their generosity. but we do believe strongly that is not going to be forever and we should stand on our own feet, sooner rather than later. we have a great potential in that country, so that's also should not be in the long run problem for the country. but we are, would like to express that we are profoundly

grateful and appreciating for all the help assistance and cooperation and support which has been delivered to us to deliver afghanistan for years of tie raw knee. >> charlie: your appreciation for the lives that have been lost in afghanistan by people who came to the country to fight for your country. there is the question that often is asked as well the afghans have to win this. the united states can't win this, the afghans have to win this. >> i agree with you entirely. just help us to be able to do it. >> charlie: and afghans have to show, and this is not

criticism, this is a tenant of insurgency. now you are in the counterinsurgency business against the taliban. you cannot win without the support of yr people. >> yes, i know. >> charlie: counterinsurgency. you have to convince them that you can win and you have to convince them that they are safe. >> i gave you the focus that all efforts should be the afghan people. >> charlie: they have to support you. >> but they will support us definitely and all this summer i told you the afghans wanted to side with the government definitely but we paid to protect them and the result was that they could not, they could not determine their support now which we in the summer which we

have given them that opportunity, they are actually, they are not no longer oppressed and they are exercising their free will. and they're coming into the side of the government. but i definitely believe that this war is imminently but the final solution is as you mentioned should be the afghan solution. >> charlie: and how is it that the taliban, with all the acts of violence that they have achieved, been able to do this? >> i told you at the beginning that insufficiency of secure forces both international and national have prevented us to be able to protect the nation. you see what we did, we had a small force for years. there will be a threat, we will

go and clear it, that will not be a problem but we couldn't stay there because there will be another one somewhere else. so we will tell them that people had no opportunity to express themselves or demonstrate their support for the government. but now it is changing but the only thing is that we together, together we should demonstrate that our well is not broken both to afghan people and the international community of the resolve or any premature exit strategy will have catastrophic consequences for us all. so that is going to be the key

and that's why the relation, security donations beyond 2014 will play a very wide role. >> charlie: the world today, the united states has a power among others is very complex. we're seeing dramatic change in the middle east as we speak. >> yes. >> charlie: governments fall. we're seeing challenges to our national security in a variety of places. why should the united states and the international forces be in afghanistan? what's at stake for us? >> you see, after what happened in afghanistan, afghanistan became the state in an area to hide, to trade, to plan and conduct operation. and it was from afghanistan

which 911 tried to do. i think that region as a hole is actual the credit of this terrorists. so throughout the history i think every nation has tried to defend itself as far as way as possible. and that is the participation in world war i and world war two. in this case also, in this time also i think the nature of the threat is different, it is even more dangerous it doesn't recognize any boundaries, it cannot be overcome by a single nation no matter how powerful. it needs a strategic global response. and also coordinated and

concerted effort of the community of nations. otherwise i think nobody's going to be safe on this planet. so if we are going to defend the collective freedom of this global village everybody has to contribute. the only thing is that the united states has shared most of the burden in other allies have not had a fair share of what is at stake. >> charlie: al-qaeda has lots of places and there are not many in afghanistan, there's some in pakistan, in yemen and other places in africa. but they're not the center of the al-qaeda orerrorist operation is not from afghanistan anymore.

>> afghanistan has a symbolic significance and it is also their first experiment. and the area is such that it is full of different type of threat. afghanistan i think is an area that there is the threat of conventional war, unconventional war disputes around the countries, economic under development, transnational terrorism and a lot of extremism and radicalism. and then drugs, weapons smuggling and urbanized crime altogether make that area one of the most volatile regions in the group. >> charlie: i thank you, mr. minister for taking this time. you've been generous with your time. >> no, no, it's been a pleasure. >> charlie: i have a small curious question. when you were fighting with

the -- did you have any contact with osama bin laden. >> i have met him once. initially i think he was just making roads in the mountains. then i met him once when we went to get some supplies from him. not from him, no, he was getting it from the same source which we were getting it. >> charlie: where do you think he is now? >> i thinkhe will b not stationed but moving all the time. >> charlie: somewhere else. >> it can be anywhere from the cities and up to the border area. >> charlie: we really don't know, do we. >> not exactly. >> charlie: we don't know. >> no, we don't know. i think that is always changing,

changing location. >> charlie: thank you again. >> you are most welcome, sir. >> charlie: abdul rahim wardak. he is the defense minister of afghanistan. he is -- it is most generous of him to spend this hour with us. thank you for joining us. we'll see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org additional funding provided by these funders:

02/25/11 02/25/11 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is "democracy now!" [chanting] >> amy goodman is in madison, wisconsin, where senate democrats are chanting "shame." it strip's most public employees of collectiveargaining, the bill goes to the floor. it we will go live to the capital after the headlines where people have slept overnight as an unprecedented protests. over 100,000 protesters are expected in madison on saturday. all of that and more coming up.

this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i am juan gonzalez. navi pillay is warning thousands of people may have been killed inolonel muammar gaddafi's assault on the growing libyan uprising. the un is also warning libya's food supply chain is on the brink of collapse. deadly clashes are ongoing as anti-government forces close in on the capital city of tripoli. according to al jazeera, fighting appears to be the most intense 30 miles west in the town of al-zawiya. an attempt -- televised interview, gaddafi planned al qaeda and who is attending drugs for the revolt against his rule. >> they give them pills. these pills in tripoli are called [unintelligible] when you take them, you will not wake up unless you