desperate situation in afghanistan. we'll bring that to you live when it happens. u.s. military is racing to pick up the pace to get americans and others out of afghanistan. evacuating 1,800 more people for a total of nearly 6,000, since the taliban takeover this weekend. pentagon officials say around 4,500 troops remain in afghanistan, and president biden says they could stay beyond the august 31st withdrawal deadline to assist with continuing evacuations. >> we're going to stay until we get them all out. >> just ahead, in a first on msnbc, we'll speak with the chair of the armed services committee since the collapse of afghanistan. we'll take you to that pentagon briefing as soon as it starts. i'm garrett haake in for hallie jackson. courtney kube is at the pentagon, josh bradley is in london.

tell us where we are in terms of both getting u.s. military personnel into the country and the evacuations getting folks out. >>. >> reporter: so the pace has really stepped up. look back to where evacuations ground to a halt. they could not get troops in, people out. operations have been flowing for several days and now getting up wards of 20 flights in and out every day, every 24 hours. so nearly one an hour. they're moving hundreds of people. the big problem continues to be getting these people to the airport safely. so, what we know -- and i'll set this up for our viewers. the airport has two sides, civilian side and the military side. right now, the taliban have checkpoints that are really surrounding both sides of the airport. the u.s. military has been in touch, in direct talks really, with the taliban there on the ground. these sort of technical talks

where they discuss things like the situation under which they will allow americans through these checkpoints. but afghans are still having a hard time, and we're even hearing anecdotal evidence or situations where americans are having a hard time getting through these checkpoints as well. once they get to the airport, particularly to the military side of the airport, the situation is more orderly. the military is getting people on to these flights, on to manifests and getting them out of the country. but again the big question is, how can -- is there anything that the u.s. can do, both the u.s. military and the state department, to help these afghan civilians get safely through these taliban checkpoints and get to the airport so that even more of them can get out of the country, garret? >> we'll probably learn more in this briefing. of course yesterday, defense officials said they weren't interested in expanding that perimeter. it wasn't something that could be done. we'll see if there are follow-ups there in a little bit. president biden has been making headlines for this interview he

conducted with abc news, saying at any point of withdrawal from afghanistan, chaos would be unavoidable. although that's not what he was saying in the weeks leading up to this drawdown. walk us through what's going on at the white house. >> that's right, garret. the president still very dug in behind his decision, defending his administration's handling of the last few weeks, despite the images that we're all seeing on television. the president insisting in this new interview that no matter when we pulled out of afghanistan, it was bound to be messy, which seems to be at odds with his description just a few weeks ago, when he was saying it was not inevitable that the taliban was going to quickly overrun the country. and while officials were telling us that they were planning for an orderly stepdown of this process. the president also saying in this interview that it is not true that his advisers in the military were telling him not to pull out the remaining 2,500 troops on the timeline on which the u.s. ultimately acted. he said as far as he can recall,

nobody was advising him that that was a bad idea. and the president saying that essentially if we were to stay longer, that wouldn't have made any difference at all. but the president is kind of answering a question here that nobody is asking, because the questions that are continuing to be logged at the white house from capitol hill, and the like, are not about should we have pulled out of afghanistan but the execution, why the decision was made to start pulling out these troops, potentially giving room for the taliban to start making advances before they had gotten out the tens of thousands of afghan allies that they are now mounting this massive evacuation to try to get out under less than ideal circumstances. the pre, as we speak, is scheduled to be meeting in the situation room with his top national security advisers for an update not only on the military portion of this, but also the diplomatic and other engagements by the u.s. to try to get the situation under control. as of now, we don't anticipate hearing directly from the president today.

instead, he is leaving it to his aides at the pentagon and the state department to give the latest as this situation continues to unfold, garret. >> should we take that as an indication, josh, that the white house thinks that he did what he needed to do, that he doesn't need to speak further on this topic, at least for now? >> reporter: the president's aides, including national security adviser jake sullivan, said we will continue to hear from president biden himself but are increasingly turning to others to make this case, including john finer, deputy national security adviser as well as the u.n. ambassador and others. they are trying to make it look like there is a whole of government approach to this with all the different agencies aligned with one another, rowing in the same direction, even though a lot of this, to the public, looks like something that was not particularly well coordinated among those agencies leading to the disjointed situation we're seeing on the ground now. >> to that end, lara, you've

seen intelligence officials on the record or background coming out and saying, no, no, this isn't on us. military officials saying nothing had predicted this quick collapse. so, what are you learning from your perch about what we, as a government, knew and who knew it when? >> reporter: well, i think that we're learning that the biden administration really didn't see this coming at all. as i reported earlier in the week, military and intelligence officials had warned that kabul could collapse in weeks to months after the american withdrawal. that's after august 31st. but, of course, no one really realized that the taliban would seize power mostly bloodlessly in a matter of days. they essentially walked into kabul and seized the presidential palace. time and time again it seems that american officials overestimated the will and capacity of afghan security forces and underestimated the effectiveness of the taliban's strategy. it's interesting to see what the taliban have done here,

something that the pentagon officials here have realized way too late. the taliban has been, ever since president biden announced we would withdraw in april, they have been conducting an steeply effective influence campaign as well as their physical campaign across the country. they've been taking advantage of tribal politics across the country. they've been making deals with village elders as well as afghan forces, saying we're going to attack, but if you lay down your weapons and surrender peacefully, we won't kill you. they've been doing this across the country. this has really he roded morale even as the americans have been withdrawing from 2,500 to before this happened just a thousand or so troops there. we've really seen morale erode among the afghan security forces and many of them are fleeing, on foot or by plane, and we think people in the pentagon really just did not understand just how bad of a situation this was going to be, and how effective the taliban were at their

strategy. >> matt bradley in london, i know you've been following the developments on the ground in afghanistan closely, talking to some young afghans. what are you learning from your post? >> reporter: yeah. we've been seeing so far, garrett, some rumblings of what looks like some sightings of an early opposition to the taliban protest mostly in the east of the country. at least one person was shot dead in those protests and 12 people, according to reuters, have been killed outside that continuing mele of hamid karzai airport in kabul. they're in their 20s and don't have many adult memories of life under the taliban before 2011 -- or 2001. so for them they're greeting the taliban and all of these positive noises, reassurances the taliban has been making with some level of cautious optimism. garrett, to you and i, that may sound naive to our american ears. but if you've been living under

a state of war for the last 20 years, you might think of the taliban as offering some relief. you know, they've been regailed by stories ever since they were kids, by their parents and older relatives about the horrors of life upped the taliban and are very frightened of the taliban but the taliban has given them something they've never seen before, safety and stability. i spoke with young man, about 28 years old, said among the youngest members of parliament of afghanistan. here is what he had to say. >> i'm not saying that everything is jolly right now. it's not. we are still in a panicking mood, no doubt about it. let's put a pin in that. that is a fact, and no one can deny, we are all scared. we don't know what's going to happen. i'm talking about i am hopeful because the way they are moving

forward gives us hope that we might actually have a proper government. we might actually have a government, inclusive government that from every tribe or ethnic group will see themselves in it. that's what i'm hopeful about. >> reporter: you know, garrett, i've spoken with a lot of young women, who also have echoed these statements. again it's easy to think these are young people who are so naive about the true nature of the taliban. but again they're so anxious for stability, they're so anxious for an end to war that they're willing to believe, or at least consider what the taliban is offering. garrett? >> that's really important context. matt bradley in london, thank you. lara, josh, courtney kube, who will be in that meeting when it begins. first interview since the collapse of afghanistan, of the central government there.

congressman, you were supportive of the biden administration's decision to pull out of the country when it was announced in april. you said you couldn't wait for conditions on the ground. it was going to have to be a decision that was made. what is your assessment of the execution of this withdrawal thus far? >> so, first of all, i was in eastern europe for the last six or seven days. that's the only reason i haven't been on tv before that. i didn't have access to it. it's a terrible situation, without question. my reaction is, you have to sort of divide the question here. the decision to get out of afghanistan, i think, makes sense for many of the reasons that president biden has said. and to some degree, the rapid collapse of the afghan national security forces and the afghan government sort of makes the point that we could have stayed another year, another five, another ten, another 15 and the result wouldn't have been different. the thing that's really troubling is that the biden administration didn't listen to the intelligence more carefully, didn't plan better. when we first started doing hearings on the anticipated

decision of the biden administration to withdraw from afghanistan in january and february, many members in our community, including me, asked the pentagon what their plan was to get our supporters out of afghanistan. and the initial answers that we got from the pentagon were, well, the state department is handling that. we were like, okay, but it's a security thing. they're going to need you. and we really didn't get great answers. now, as you know, we in congress have been pushing from that time. we passed a couple of pieces of legislation to increase the number of visas. we have been pushing for that plan. sadly, that's what was missing from this withdrawal plan, to make sure that our security forces were there to protect the people that we needed to get out. i talked to jason crowe about this yesterday when i got back into town. he said it didn't really make sense that you take the military personnel out first and the civilian personnel out second. you're going to need the military personnel to help the civilian personnel get out and to help the citizens get out.

so they did not listen to the intelligence as much as they should have, and they didn't plan as much for getting the civilians out as they should have. that's the bottom line. and we're now seeing the result of that. >> it's view that the intelligence was there, the planning was lacking? >> well, in this bit of phenomenon going back, gosh, 15 years when i've gone to afghanistan, i would go from dod briefings to cia briefings, particularly when i served on the intell committee. dod was always more optimistic about the capacity of the asaf and the afghan government than the cia was. the cia was very clear eyed and said between the corruption, the tribalism, the incompetence, they just didn't have a lot of confidence that there was a reasonable alternative to the taliban. and i thought your piece there in interviewing the afghan legislator was really telling. it's not so much that people love the taliban in afghanistan, but there's got to be an

alternative. and that's what we struggled with for 15 years, trying to build up that alternative. a competent, you know -- i don't want to say noncorrupt but certainly less corrupt government that could actually lead afghanistan. and that's what wasn't there. and i think the intell was there, telling us that. and the biden administration should have heeded that more and should have been more prepared for what happened as a result. >> is this the case of the pentagon, department of defense, not just under this administration but going back the last 20 years, to borrow a phrase, grading their own homework? the pentagon goes in, saying we're going to train the military. they turn around and say yep, there we go. we've got a military, we've got 300,000 people? >> yeah. this may seem like a tangent. but this is why civilian control of the military is so important. i don't blame the military for the way they approach this. what i'll say about the military is you ask them a question that

starts with, can you, the answer is always going to be yes. >> sure. >> that's the way they're trained. you want me to take that hill, i'm going to take it. whatever you ask me to do, i'm going to find a way to get done. fine. that's where the civilians have to step in and say appreciate that, respect your capability and where you're coming from, but we civilians are ultimately the ones who have to make the decisions and we look at this and see it differently as a result. so i often times hear people say, well, why do politicians not just do what the generals say? well, this is the balance that is supposed to be struck between their very specific military skill and the broader political decision about what needs to be done based on the intell. and i do think we didn't -- we weren't as hard on that intell as we should have been. >> so, to that end, when the pentagon said yesterday when you have secretary austin that the military doesn't have the capability to go out into the country in afghanistan and retrieve all of these americans,

and others who can't get to the airport, that's unusual then for them to essentially say no here. is it a case that we don't have the military capability, or do we not have the political desire to engage in the country in that way? >> well, obviously, my statement there about they can do anything is a bit of an exaggeration. >> of course but -- >> it's the way they are trained basically to say if this is the mission, we're going to find a way to do it. now in this case, we have no troops in afghanistan outside of kabul, outside of the airport. you're talking about a mission that is beyond the level of difficult. but again, throughout this process, you know, the general position, and we ran into this in iraq and afghanistan, i'm sure that secretary austin, if you want to put 50,000 troops in afghanistan and go get them, sure, but the cost of that is obviously way beyond what we want to pay. so, it's striking that balance. as far as where we're at right now, it's a difficult situation, you know, in large part because

of how difficult afghanistan is to begin with. and we shouldn't lose track of that. we were trying to do a very difficult thing. one point that i think is important, we went into afghanistan to make sure that al qaeda didn't hit us again. and i know people are saying, was it worth it? i think it was, because, you know, osama bin laden did not hit us again. we did not have another terrorist attack. but then once we got there, once we took out al qaeda, once we drove them out of the country, the question was, if we just leave now, won't they skrust come right just come right back? it made sense to put a government in place to make sure they don't just come right back. back to 2004, 2005, had we just pulled out, people would be saying that was stupid. what we discovered from 2005 forward was the difficulty of getting a stable gst and stable afghan national security force in place was far higher than we

expected at first. and then we didn't really pay as close attention to the intell as we should have about how difficult that was proving to be. >> time for about 1 1/2 more questions to you. i want to ask you to your reaction to something president biden said in his abc news interview. listen to the president here. >> the idea that somehow there's a way to have gotten out without chaos ensuing, i don't know how that happens. i don't know how that happened. >> so for you, that was always priced into the decision? >> yes. >> so taking into account everything you said about how challenging the security environment is and was always going to be there, do you agree with the president? was the chaos we all watched over the last five or six days unavoidable? >> yes and no. i think it is absolutely true that it was never going to be easy, and it was never going to be painless. i think the president is right about that. but where i think he's wrong is

i think we could have planned better for how we were going to withdrawal the citizens from afghanistan that we wanted to. and i think in the february, march, april timeframe when we were getting ready for this withdrawal, we could have done more to begin the process of getting those folks out sooner. i think it could have been less chaotic. and i think it's perfectly the right thing to do to judge that and say, look, we need to learn from this, learn about the mistake that was made and not paper over it. the president is right, this wasn't going to be easy. it wasn't going to be clean. it was obviously going to be difficult, and a lot of challenging situations. but i think the planning could have been better. and i don't think anyone could objectively look at that and reach a different conclusion. >> chairman adam smith, thank you very much for your time. we appreciate your expertise on this issue. now we've got much more ahead on afghanistan, while we're waiting on an update from the pentagon. we'll bring that to you live when that happens and try to talk to a former army captain

who lost his legs while serving in afghanistan. his candid answer on whether his service there was in vain. plus the biden administration cracking down on governors trying to block schools from mandating masks. new details on his threat to take legal action. and the rising number of covid cases, especially in children, forcing one medical center to open a tented field hospital to care for the sick. we'll have an exclusive look inside this makeshift hospital and hear from families of hospitalized children there. ali. >> it's scary when you see your child laying and asleep and you don't know if he's going to wake up out of his sleep or you don't know what's going to happen. s st know what's going to happen.

when we see evidence that

immunity is waning especially in this delta variant, we have an obligation to act. >> that was u.s. surgeon general vivek murthy this morning on the nation's top health officials and why they're now recommending this vaccine booster shot. the white house is launching another massive messaging campaign around the decision to make boosters available for pfizer and moderna recipients eight months after their second dose. much of the country, 49% to be exact, is not even fully vaccinated yet. that's the two shots, let alone ready for a third booster shot. a lot of those people are younger kids who still aren't eligible for one shot of any vaccine. and just 59.6% of americans, ages 12 and up, are fully vaccinated as of today. with me now is director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins. let's start with these concerns about the vaccine's protection, the really series protection here against severe disease, which i think is what most people are worried about, and the idea that that fades.

eight months isn't like a light switch here. should people expect to be at higher risk of those kinds of infections as they move closer to that eight-month mark? >> there'sdesignation. it's in that general zone where we'll start to see some risk that vaccinated individuals might actually get infected in a way that could be a bit more serious. the good news is, right now that's not the case. if you look and see what's happened in the course of the last few months, the ability to protect yourself against severe illness, with the existing vaccines, including with delta being out there, is looking really good. but you can see a slight tendency for that protection to start to wane. there's one thing we've learned about covid-19 is you don't wait until you see real trouble before you react. you try to anticipate. and that's what we did yesterday by this projections of the idea that boosters will become

necessary. and start with the people who are the furthest away from their original immunization. and about september 20th begin to offer to those folks the chance to get a third dose. of course, fda has to weigh in on this. the cdc and their advisory committee will need to weigh in on this. all those things have to take place over the next month. having looked at the data, along with my colleagues like the surgeon general you just had a clip from, we're all in agreement that it's time to act. >> doctor, there's something like 37 million of us who have had covid at some point and then since become fully vaccinated or had a breakthrough case somewhere along the way. what about folks like us? i'm one of those people. is your immunity still the same? are you still looking at that eight-month time line? there's a lot of confusion around state of natural immunity and what that does in conjunction with the vaccine.

>> great question, garrett. we do know people who have had the natural infection from covid-19 generate an immune response but interestingly and surprisingly, it's not as strong as the response you get from the vaccine. that seems counterintuitive, doesn't it, that the vaccine would actually work better than getting exposed and having the illness yourself, but that's the case. so that's why we recommend for people like you to go ahead and get vaccinated, even if you had a documented case of covid-19. just like president trump did. in that circumstance -- >> to be clear i'm not talking about getting your two-shot regimen. i'm talking about if you are fully vaccinated and had covid at some point, are you still on that eight-month timeline? >> you know, i would not tell you at the moment, garrett that we have really good data to answer that question. i would think that's something we're going to try to see if there's enough numbers to be able to assess that in the next couple of weeks. at the present time, though, i

think the safest step to take would be when you hit your eight months since your original immunization, yeah, it looks like it would be appropriate to get that booster. the risks seem to be quite small. by the way, israel has already started doing this for people over 60. we can see over the last month what's happened. the safety problems don't seem to be an issue. you can already see that people who got that third dose have a lower instance of infection. >> doctor, i think a lot of people are frustrated with the idea that otherwise healthy people are talking about getting a third shot and we've got kids in this country, millions of them, who can't get one shot. where are we, why is it that the science for adults is in one place and the science for kids, even getting started on the vaccination process, is still not getting us where we need to be, clearly? >> well, this is the challenge that we're trying to balance the safety of kids with the need to get people protected. let's be clear.

kids 12 and over have been able to get vaccinated for several months, and i wish more of them were. you're really talking about kids under 12 where the data hasn't even correct been submitted to fda, but it will be shortly, to assess how to do this. what's the right dose? you don't want to necessarily give a full dose to a 5-year-old. how do we figure that part out? that data needs to be looked at closely. we want to be sure there's no surprises. i know people are frustrated about that. realistically, though, approval of vaccines for kids under 12 will probably not happen for at least another two or three months. >> doc, i've got time for one more question. world health organization has been doubling down on their booster shots, suggesting that it's like giving a life jacket to somebody who is already wearing one while other people drown. i know we talk about the importance of vaccinating the world as a way to stamp out infections. even if you don't believe in the

altruistic reasons to get the vaccine around the world, what do you think about that? are these doses not more useful being the first and second shots of people around the world as opposed to the third shot in the arms of merchs? >> i think that is a bit of a false choice. we, the united states, have already sent out 150 million doses to 80 countries. we have a promise of another 200 at the end of this year and another 3 million after that. so we have been making these accessible and cranking up manufacturing. the metaphor of the life jacket, the problem is we're discovering the life jackets aren't as buoyant over time as we hoped they were. the united states, after all, has one of the worst cases of covid-19. we have to take care of our own folks as well. so i hope people won't see this as you've got to have one or the other. we can have both. we can take care of our population and we can do everything that america has done when called upon to help the rest of the world. and as a physician who cares a

lot about global health i'm going to push really hard for that, too. >> and to that end, and i know this modeling has always been challenging. are you concerned as we get deeper into the eight months past many americans getting their second shot, if people aren't getting their third shots that that's the kind of thing that could potentially prolong the pandemic in the united states? >> everything we can do to reduce the number of cases and viral replications is worth doing. that's what the boosters will promise to do for people already vaccinated. but as you said at the beginning, the biggest problem we have right now is 90 million people who haven't gotten their first dose yet. as much as we're talking about boosters today, we must not step back from the most urgent need to get those folks to sign up, because they are sitting ducks right now for this delta variant, which is running pretty wild across the southeast. and increasingly the rest of the country as well. don't wait any longer. if you're the one on the fence,

it's time to get off the fence, roll up your sleeve and save yourself and your family for what can be a really series illness. >> the most important point. we'll leave it there, dr. francis collins. thank you very much. and we're just minutes away from a pentagon briefing on afghanistan. live coverage the minute it starts. but next up, we'll go one on one with a former army captain who was seriously injured while serving in afghanistan. given the situation there now, he tells us whether he thinks his personal sacrifices there were worth it. this is a cold call! this is annie. will you turn to cold washing in tide. unsubscribe. wait, wait, wait this helps the environment. it saves you money. i will take that money. for the environment. as someone who resembles someone else...

i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ to make my vision a reality my varilux progressive lenses provide seamlessly transition from near to far. with every detail in sharp focus. that's seeing no limits. varilux lenses by essilor. >> we'll take you live to the pentagon where they're briefing on the situation in afghanistan. let's listen in. >> good morning, everybody. it's good to be here to give you an operational update. as you know, we're getting into

a rhythm here. i'll try to continue to foeng us on key operational highlights, focus and our priorities. we've been writing details through the past and 24-hour snapshots and i'll provide those details with respect to a few areas today. further, i'm prepared to give a cumulative update on the total number of people evacuated from afghanistan so far. first, the u.s. military footprint in kabul has now more than 5,200 total troops on the ground. kabul airport remains secure and open for flight operations. there are now military gates that have access for entry into the air field, which will help expedite processing in a safe and orderly manner. in the past 24 hours, 13 c-17s arrived with additional troops and equipment. also, 12 c-17s departed.

these flights contain more than 2,000 passengers. these flights left kabul and arrived designated safe havens. since the start of evacuations august 14th, we have air lifted approximately 7,000 total evacuees, reflective of a ramp-up of aircraft and air lift capability, faster processing of evacuees and greater informa fi. if we go back to the state department of movement at the end of july, cumulative number of people moved out of afghanistan is somewhere near 12,000. that number includes american citizens, u.s. embassy personnel, individuals

designated by the state department as siv applicants and other evacuees in coordination with the state department. we're ready to increase throughput and have scheduled aircraft departures accordingly. we intend to maximize each plane's capacity. we're prioritizing people above all else, and we're focused on doing this as safely as possible with absolute urgency. we have not experienced any security incidence nor interference since my last update. we recognize the inherent danger of operating in this environment but our service members in kabul remain agile, professional and are postured to continue mission and respond if required. we look at the last 24 hours, f-18s flew armed over watched

flights over kabul to ensure enhanced security. we maintain a watchful eye and are continuously conducting in-depth assessments to protect the safety of americans. we will use all of the tools in our arsenal to achieve this goal. i want to reinforce that we are absolutely focused on this mission of national importance. we are committed to the safe evacuation of as many people as quickly and as safely as possible. in haiti yesterday, eight united states army helicopters, three ch-47 shin ooks out of honduras repositioned to launch support operations in support of haiti earthquake operations. those assets have already started moving disaster relief personnel and supplies and supported gtf haiti's assessment

of air fields and roads throughout the area. a ch-47 xheeted a partial move of about 60% of a field hospital which we believe the rest of the field hospital will be air lifted today. the u.s. coast guard continues its life-saving missions and all the helicopters involved will be on air lift missions to ease the suffering and to get people and capability the where they need to be. the u.s.s. arlington is on its way and is expected to provide additional lift and medical capabilities and serve as another resource for the people of haiti. finally, special tactics airmen assigned to special operations wing are currently augmenting the life-saving and humanitarian aid efforts in haiti and are responsible for

conducting various air field surveys to determine suitability for bringing in follow-on humanitarian aid via air lift. thank you very much. >> just a couple schedule to go over. secretary austin here in washington did have a phone conversation this morning with his counterpart in bahrain, his royal heiness, deputy supreme commander and prime minister and this afternoon the secretary will be welcoming his excellency, deputy prime minister and state of affairs for the state of qatar in the building. we will issue a readout for each of those events later today. with that, we'll start taking questions. i think, bob, you're on the phone. yeah? >> yes, thank you, john.

general taylor said that there were 12 c-17 aircraft departed with evacuees over the past 24 hours, which is a smaller number than the previous 24 hours, i believe. my question is regarding with the clock running down toward august 31st, does secretary austin believe that it will be necessary to extend the deadline? i know it's not his call, but has he recommended that the deadline of august 31st be extended? >> bob, you heard the secretary yesterday say that we're very focused on making sure we get as many people out as possible and as fast as possible, and we're working on that very diligently. as you heard the general's update. and you also heard the president say that if he believes that

there's a need to alter the time line that he would revisit that at the appropriate time. what we're focused on right now, bob, is head down, shoulder to the wheel, trying to get as many people out as possible, as quickly as possible, and i think i'll leave it at that. tara? >> thank you. a follow-up to bob's question, since the president has left the door open to troops possibly staying past august 31st, as admiral basly begun conversations with his taliban counterpart to make sure if troops do stay they will not come under attack? >> i don't know that level of detail what conversations admiral is having with his counterpart out in town. again, our focus right now -- there's been no decision to change the deadline. and we are focused on doing everything we can inside that deadline, to move as many people out as possible. and if and when there's a

decision to change that, then obviously that would require additional conversations with the taliban as well. but i don't believe that those conversations have happened at this point. >> and as a follow-up on the flights of the f-18s, do they have authorization to fire if u.s. troops or allies come under attack? >> they're not low pass flights. they're at altitude. as the general briefed they're on overwatched. there are other aircraft that general mckepzy and admiral have at their disposal to provide this overwatch. they're not low passes. and i would only, to your second question, i would simply say as always, we have the right to defend ourselves, our people and our operations. james? >> how many f-18s are there? and was there a specific reason or did you see something that led you to move them? or was it we have them so why not? >> good question.

just going back, these were not low pass. these are providing air support. and this isn't anything new. as we know, the ronald reagan has been there, providing support. so these f-18s are flying more than just yesterday. they are continuously in support and part of the assets i briefed early on that were always available to the centcom commander. >> overwatch since? >> always. >> you mentioned them today because -- >> to give an update to specifically the type of capability that the commanders on the ground continue to have to do, as mr. kirby said, to provide that self-defense and assets to the commander. >> also, there is some reporting out there that there were low passes and that there was some sort of show of force. we felt it was important for the general to provide some context about what is happening in the air and why. that's why we mentioned it today. i don't think you're going to get a daily update from us about

every aircraft and every flight plan, but we felt that given the context of some of the error erroneous reporting out there. >> are you getting context that if you don't leave by a certain date that groups will start attacking the airport? >> i won't speak to intelligence one way or the other. force protection is a high priority. we heard that in the general's opening comments as well. we're always evaluating the threat. it's not only a day-by-day thing, it's an hour-by-hour thing. we know this is still a perilous environment. all i can tell you is that we're going to do everything that we can to make sure that we can protect our force, protect the people that we're trying to move on to the airport, and protect their movement out of kabul as well as protect the entire operation at the air force. you heard the secretary talk about the need to be able to

defend the airport. so, it's something we're looking at literally hour by hour. >> and general, british paratroopers are going into kabul to rescue and evacuate some of their citizens who are trapped and can't get to the airport because of the taliban. why isn't the u.s. doing that? >> at this time, as i said, our main mission continues to be to secure hk to allow those american citizens and other sibs to come and be processed at the air field. >> just to follow up, how are you fueling your planes, the c-17s? are you in a position that you have to buy fuel from the taliban? >> the assets on hkai, on the air field, are what we need to maintain the operations, all operations to support the mission. >> so that's a no? you're not buying fuel from the taliban? >> there is plenty of fuel

sustainment capability at hamid karzai airport. as you know, jen, we also have the ability on our own, our logistics ability, to fuel our aircraft as needed. courtney? >> i'm still a little unclear about the f-18s. why do you have armed f-18s? can you explain more about -- >> sure. >> -- what overwatch means, what they're doing or providing? >> sure. i'll let the general talk to that, but sure. >> the ability to provide close air support is something that needs to be immediate. if a condition on the ground ever required that. so as prudent military operations, we ensure there are always assets available so that the commander, if required, can ensure the time and space of reaction is as little as

possible. >> if you need to do air strikes over kabul? >> they're there to ensure had an they can support the commander on the ground. >> and also you mentioned there have been about 7,000 people taken out since the 14th, and you're hoping to increase that -- i'm sorry, 12,000 total out since the end of july. how many more do you anticipate having to move? >> so as i said, the military capacity continues to be 5,000 to 9,000 a day. and we are ready to do that. and as mr. kirby said, our increased interactions with department of state will allow that to -- as you're seeing the ability to increase more flights a day. >> and kirby, can i ask you one quick one? is there any update of talks to the taliban about allowing aftera afghans to get to the checkpoints and to the airport safely? >> there's no update, court. you heard the secretary talk about this yesterday. we're in communication, obviously, with the local taliban commander about making

sure that those at-risk afghans, special immigrant visa applicants and additional afghan citizens that we want to move through are able to move through. and it comes down a lot to the credentialing and making sure that they can prove and we can prove that these are appropriate people to move through. and we have indications this morning that that process is working. barbara? >> i'm still confused about the f-18s as well. first of all, this is the first time i recall you telling us of overwatch flights since u.s. troops arrived. so are these the first armed flights over kabul since u.s. troops arrived? >> no. no. and, barb, what you have to remember is before we began

noncombatant evacuation, we had been in the midst of drawing down our forces. >> i'm asking -- i'm sorry. i'm asking specifically since operations with u.s. forces began at the airport -- >> since thenoncombatant evacuation. >> since it began at the airport. >> no. >> you say close air support, but you're saying you're prepared now to conduct air strikes other kabul? >> i'm not going to talk about potential future operations. i do think it is important to level set here. that even throughout the draw down we had overwatch capabilities. throughout the draw down we had over watch capabilities. so the fact that we're flying overwatch missions now and have been since the 14th we were doing it before the 14th as you would think we would, and force

protection is a high priority. and we're going to read our rouses to make sure we can accomplish this mission safely and efficiently just line the prevent mission of draw down safely and efficiently. this is a continuum. this is not something new. the reason we decided to talk about it today, and i don't think you will see us talk about it every day, but we thought it was important today given the reporting out there that we were flying low passes over the city or shows of force, that's not what this is. this is just an added layer of force protection. it's the prudent and responsible thing to do. >> on your discussions with the taliban, now that the potential is in public, does the u.s. military, does the defense department, feel it would at least need taliban acquiessence

to stay? >> i think it is just a fundamental fact of the reality of where we are that communications and a certain measure of agreement with the taliban on what we're trying to accomplish has to continue to occur. i'm not going to speculate past august 31st. i have not gotten to anyone on the phone, karla. >> the airport evacuations by other countries, and we mentioned what the brits were doing, but we also heard about that dutch plane, and one other question, if i may, there is

reports of resistance outside in pashir. are they doing anything to support the afghan troops trying to make a resistance and push back? >> on your first question, we obviously are, and you heard the secretary talk about this yesterday, willing to support the movement, the safe movement of citizens of our allies and partners. we have already done that. and some of the numbers that the general briefed that got out of the country were citizens of other countries, allies, and partners. we will continue to do that. for the exact process i'm afraid i'm not qualified to speak to that. that is a better question put to our state department colleagues in terms of how it works from a process perspective. we're in full support of that. our main mission is airport security, safe operation of the

airfield, and continues to get people out. on your second question, we have seen reports the same as you of potential pockets of resistance, but i would just again dress our military mission in afghanistan right now is to conduct this noncombatant evacuation in a safe and orderly way and that's what we're doing. >> you mentioned the phone call today and the counter part. the defense minister later today, can you talk about the role these nations, both nations in general are playing in this operation? and are they putting assets in this operation to evacuate some of the afghanis or u.s. citizens in. >> i think i would let them speak for themselves.

we will not get ahead of that. but both countries are key partners in the region. bahrain hosts the military and is a partner. we're always interested in having good conversations with these key partners in the region, but i don't think i will speak to specifics with respect to afghanistan, i will let those countries speak for themselves. >> is there any behavior by anyone trying to reach the airport. >> we made it very clear that any attack on our people in our operations at the airport will

be bhaet a forceful response. there has been no hostile interactions between the taliban or our forces or american citizens getting through. we have seen reports of the taliban harassing some afghans that were trying to move to the airport. we're in constant communication to make sure that they have the same visibility on the same people and some of that has to do with a common site picture on the credentialing. >> what about americans outside of the airport? >> we have not seen any hostile interactions and we have not seen them impede or harass or obstruct the movement of american citizens from their

environment to the airport and we want to see that continue. >> could you discuss the nonamerican flights going in and out of the airport, how many, how many people have been evacuated, and what countries are still seeks to take people out? and -- i have a follow up on the taliban. >> okay, i'll let the general take -- >> what i will say is that when we talk about all flights going in and out of the kabul airport, being synchronized and worked through, that coordination is being done. so when i talk as the numbers that we're starting to include the numbers of everybody that is leading from other countries. i don't have the details right now of which countries left in the last 24 hours, but all of those flights, anything coming in and out, is being coordinated

there. >> can we get any details of who? >> and then i have a follow up on the taliban. so is there anything that the taliban is, in this cooperation, is there anything they are not doing? is there anything the u.s. is not happy with in terms of how they are involved in the airport operations? and have they asked or demanded access to the airport? >> i don't know. they are accessing the airport now, it's our understanding that they understand why we're there and what we're doing. and again, that the secretary said that we continue to have that communication with them. i won't detail every conversation that we're having with the taliban. again i think it is important to let the results speak for themselves and as you and i are talking here today, we have an

understanding and they are helping to facility the safe passage for those that we're trying to get into the airport. so i will just leave it at that. let me go back to the phones again. paul, u.s. news. >> has the confidence in the ability to carry out attacks in afghanistan changed at all since the fall of kabul? particularly given the apparent coordination between the taliban and pakistan. there is counter terrorism. >> they reached the 9,000 to 5,000 goal and i want today ask

if the limiting factor is the state department's about to process people? >> let's talk first about the movement, the air capacity that is set. so that ability to air move up to 5,000 to 9,000 a day has been set and continues. as i think you have seen in the report today of the increased numbers we continue to see the ability to build those ready to fly on kabul airport and to increase to allow us to fly those out. with the ability to continue obviously as said, we that to continue to increase as we continue to bring more people, more american suicides on to the airfield so they can be processed and ready to fly. >> is there