top stories from l.c. as the war in afghanistan and has its turn see the tables turned on coalition soldiers posting fossil field leaders on the internet they taliban are using clips uploaded by the way live troops to come up to support what the withdrawal deadline nearing violence in the country shows and the size of the bains. tension mounts ahead of this weekend's parliamentary elections and politically divided strong security measures are being intensified across the country to avoid clashes country and has been in turmoil since president but he was overthrown and a bloody eight.

hundred seventy ft tall from republican a cosmodrome in kazakhstan as so use rocket has left for the international space station and with it a load of navigation data systems onboard a two russian cosmonauts under the market who accompanied the expedition twenty five. are expected to dock with the international space station sunday where they'll spend the next six months. well that's up to date with the headlines i'll be back with more in a rather thirty minutes but before that it's also used to be a tropical storm and host the two of l. also his guests if the west is destined to lose the war on terror if it has not lost it all right. you. hello and welcome to cross talk i'm peter all about the so-called war on terror has

it failed or only failing to date the war on terror has only increased violence around the world and is the west led by the u.s. the inevitable loser in this global conflict. to discuss the so-called war on terror i'm joined by my guests in washington david polak he's a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy we smith senior editor at the weekly standard he's also a visiting fellow at the hudson institute and gareth porter an investigative journalist and contributor to injure press service and another member of our team yes on the hunger all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and researching this program and trying to understand what direction the war on terror is going i had a look at a report that donald rumsfeld convened and pad put out a task force in two thousand and four and he came up with some basic things that we

should watch out for in fighting the war on terrorism and there are very simple the underlying sources of threats to america's national security are grounded in negative attitudes towards to you the u.s. in the muslim world and conditions that create them also anti-american sentiment that is a result of direct american intervention in the muslim world the u.s. is relationship with israel and quote muslims do not hate our freedoms rather they hate our policies so if if i could go to you gareth i mean it six years on have any of the lessons been learned from what rumsfeld our own best advice were good they gave us and the u.s. . well the answer is no and rumsfeld was absolutely right on and i think it's very very interesting the observation that you're making which is that the u.s. government ever since then has been going exactly the in the opposite direction which is to use policy instruments that are bound that are bound to.

basically exacerbate the problem that rumsfeld raised that is to say increase the hatred of the united states and its policies throughout the middle east and therefore make it easier for al qaeda it's associated groups and allies to recruit people for future terrorism and to get political support for its for its policies and i think that is the central conundrum of the u.s. foreign policy today ok if i can go to you in washing how do you react to that to the rumsfeld to the rumsfeld say i don't think you guys and we learned anything over the last six years on our own best advice. well first of all i don't remember i mean maybe i'm just misremembering but i don't remember that study and i find it very difficult to believe that there was a paper coming out of again maybe i just missed it

a paper coming out of rumsfeld's office that the problem is u.s. policy is i happen to believe that the fundamental problem in the region is not us policies there's a fundamental issue within the region itself and this pertains both to pakistan and afghanistan and then we're talking about the arabic speaking middle east and you mention the policies of israel really the policies of israel of anything to do with the issues in pakistan and afghanistan they have nothing to do i think. a lot of people in the region would say so if there is a real connection or not but a lot of people would say that don't you think why do the people why do the why do the people in the region say the people in the region would say so because it's driven by the regime's right it would be driven by the pakistani security services will be driven by a whole bunch of different actors pakistan and afghanistan have nothing to do with israel with the arab israeli conflict nothing at all what we're talking about is the bigger problems that we're talking about in the region we're talking about

exactly we're talking about larger issues but i would say bin ladin i would say israel is important in this ok but it's not i don't want to talk about israeli policy here or there in that sense so in the american relationship i want to talk about the war on terror just using that as an example of using that as an example saying these policy issues are a little misguided i think a lot of them do i think that we're doing do i think that we're doing ok in the war on terror yeah definitely but i would say that there are more pressing issues for u.s. policy in the region than just the war on terror so i thought the bush administration was probably incorrect to narrow the frame like that just in terms of war on terror there are much more significant issues ok how about you david what do you think about that i mean over the last six years when we were going in the right direction making the right decisions because the situation on the afghan pakistani border is not good i mean i used to think that pakistan's favorite game was cricket but it looks like now blowing up fuel fuel convoy so ok i mean fifty seven in the last couple of days i mean how is it going. well i don't think you would

be the one to say under the taliban things were just really fine and i don't know if no one is making that stand and nobody's going and like nobody's making that claim here no no no i'm delighted to hear that i'm really delighted to hear that so if you ask are we going in the right direction and the answer is yes we are things are better in afghanistan than they were under the taliban things are better in pakistan than they were in many previous periods of time we have a civilian government we have a government that is trying to work with the united states despite all the tensions in the relationship we have two countries pakistan and the united states that are trying to work together against violent islamic extremism it's not a perfect match but it's working and so yes we are going in the right direction and i would point out that there has not been a successful terrorist attack inside the united states since nine eleven so if your

question sincerely is always always the american led war on terrorists exceeding the answer is yes and i would also point out that public opinion polls across the muslim world whether in arab countries or further afield in pakistan in indonesia in india and in afghanistan itself public opinion polls across the muslim world show that popular sympathy for al qaeda for suicide bombing for terrorism and civilian and ok gary suffice it to harass scarily if i could use me god has drastically declined ok good in the last five or six years ok character so the united states is a popular country in the greater middle east. ca turned upside down of course i didn't see the internet as i knew ality turn it upside of gareth's going to hear it ok the reality is that in both afghanistan and in pakistan the taliban both afghan

taliban and pakistani taliban have grown in strength they have more followers now than they did before they have more people they do not have any more popular join the hunt than they did before they have much they have more easily popular support then they are not needed and i let you know that ok gareth go ahead continue go ahead yeah i mean within within the fatah region the people in the cia the cia operators of the drone strikes according to jeffrey who is the head of the center for terrorism law it's a mary's university who is the former legal advisor to special forces and who has contacts with people who who are in this program itself told me and i wrote a story about this that the cia operators are very much opposed to the drone strikes in pakistan why because they know they have evidence from intercepts of communications and other evidence that the cia has gathered that they are having

the opposite effect from what they're supposed to have which is to somehow. dissipate the strength of al qaida and its allies in pakistan the fact is that they are they i was wondering if i was easily out of sort of hide and. pakistan ok go ahead i'm sorry you were interrupting me so i couldn't hear you leave jump and go ahead. yeah. i know it was a it was a funny line about how the united states is loved in the middle east but as a matter of as a matter of fact the us does have much more popular support in the us is admired and respected much more in the greater middle east than most people are willing to acknowledge it in a lot of times and for including very good reasons including iran's stand courting iran iran as the united states is the most popular country and we're ready and i don't know any other country in the middle east right kind of ironic though i mean where else is america popular go to the countries that syria jordan well look i

mean we have here we have a problem we have a problem right now and i'm not going to put it just on the obama administration because the bush administration certainly had problems as well but there was a time back in you know back in two thousand and four two thousand and five and there was a great deal of optimism around the region people were really interested and people were quite enthusiastic about the bush administration calling out bad regimes and bad actors around the region including various arab rulers various muslim rulers like the iranians like the so these like the egyptians like hezbollah and we've backed off of that and that is a problem ok david you want to leave that's a problem not a carrot i'm sorry that's a problem and you you know that that is one of the reasons but not the only reason why the united states is absolutely not popular in the middle east at all we are very unpopular in the middle east and i have no idea i mean you know he would be talking about what's required to what the critique interest what's the teaching

interest i mean how does it affect us whether or not we are popular i don't understand this sort of we're talking about the middle east as though everyone there is an individual actor and everyone there has a vote so everyone can act on how they feel about the united states when this is not the case of the regimes there's also some of the security regimes hello we're talking about the global war on terror and what is called the global war on terror in that war individuals do have votes that's exactly what we're talking about that's our process the yes they don't want to use that as the day i. still go ahead david you jump in go ahead. yes if you actually look at the data which happens to be my specialty studying public opinion in that part of the world and its effect or lack of effect on actual behavior both at the individual level and at the government level what the data show is that there is absolutely no connection between attitudes toward the united states on the one hand and attitudes toward

terrorism on the other hand so that throughout the bush administration even as the united states was exceedingly unpopular in much of the middle east i agree with that. but support for terrorism declined drastically there is no connection between support for terrorism and even support for terrorism against americans or against the united states and attitudes toward the united states its president and its policies in the region muslims turn against terrorism because they know that terrorism has turned right david against him have to jump in here for a short break after a short break we'll continue our discussion on terror in the greater middle east stay with heart. and.

you can. imagine your life to a big city. this friendly. crystal clear water. organic food. living in harmony with nature. sounds impossible. some people have already chosen. a place under the sun on our team. to space make sand. but another's it sparkles and unexplainable interest.

in a place where supernatural things are coming. from . those. two. so biz that stands a payment value of infiltrating into nice presentation high production sasuke let's graphics use all of this is a way to sort of focus people's attention by using techniques that are associated with that same come out during this war we had a million military at the team. and the.

almost seventy years of the red machine would show we had people wanted to leave in the past so. he came to make changes to society was a. leader. but it wasn't possible to change the country's regime so quickly. with the. current. one a closer look fundamental changes in the state people's minds want to achieve. peace soon which brightened

a few. sun from finest impressions it's. nice for instance on t.v. don't come. and pick. welcome back to cross talk time here a little tree mind you we're talking about the u.s. led fight against terrorism. but first let's see what russians think about this issue the so-called war on terror declared by the u.s. after nine eleven continues despite promises changes it seems pos poll says remain in place analysts point out president obama has merely extended that controversial policy as all his predecessor george w.

bush and russian public opinion research center poll says that call is quite against terrorism fifty one percent of respondents deemed it in effect while twenty three percent felt a war on terror was being won significantly america's military presence abroad was seen as the primary cause of radical terrorism again as they us and its allies. all right gentlemen a few days ago pentagon spokesperson morel said the only thing that could promote reconciliation in afghanistan is more conflict now how much more complex do we have do we have to have before they can be reconciliation and by the way karzai is making his own little overtures on the side ok so we have cause i talking to the taliban in the united states saying it's not it's not a good time for reconciliation garrus if i can go to you are those mutually exclusive i mean what what's going on here. well i think that the question that

you're raising really links up with the last comment that i think was made by david suggesting that there is no relationship between the attitudes toward the united states and the problem of terrorism you know that my problem with it is that specifically if you're looking at afghanistan and pakistan you know that the situation is that when people are subject to the use of force by the united states through drone strikes through night raids by special operations forces they get angry and this is very well documented it has nothing to do with public opinion polls throughout the middle east or opinion polls throughout a particular country it has to do with the people who are impacted directly by u.s. occupation or by u.s. military actions and in both pakistan and afghanistan that's a huge problem it's admitted if you look at woodward's book it's honeycombed throughout the book that officials get the point that there are drone strikes and

special operations raids are not working the way they're supposed to they're making people angry and particularly the drone strikes are not successful they are never going to be served as successful and they know when the white house and the cia are not going to be successful but they're carrying them out anyway because they have nothing else to offer basically that's interesting leave if i go to you nothing else to offer i mean that's a pretty pessimistic comment to make i mean if. you want to get and i'm sorry let me if i can just finish up the question i mean where we go what is the ultimate aim right here i mean is it reconciliation among the afghans is it somehow if you mean the taliban here i mean is not is it you know i mean it's been going on for a day it's been going on for a decade go ahead. what the ultimate aim is not right and my opinion is not reconciliation among the afghans i mean i mean frankly i think that our af afghanistan pakistan policy is a little confused i'm not entirely convinced that the u.s.

how. as interests there and unfortunately this administration has not really quite clearly made the case that we do short of that though yes the purpose of drone strikes is to kill terrorists it's to kill bad guys the fact that people are going to get upset that bad guys are getting killed well that's certainly not surprising that people on your side are getting trounced and that's going to make you upset now exactly how many people that really recruits i mean look i'm sorry the idea that there are people in afghanistan who are able to point to the number of people who are recruited i'm sorry they drove through my town and made a lot of noise and now i'm going to be a suicide bomber i think a lot of i think a lot of this is pretty prosperous you have at least the same time we did have that terror alert that there was going to be when by like attacks again there's the recruiting somebody in there is coming from this part of the world that we're talking about here i mean who is doing the recruiting these are people who are going off and buying plane tickets and saying i'm really mad because my brother was

killed in a drone strike so now i'm going to buy a plane ticket to paris and cause trouble again these are people who are handled by various security services and very regime various regimes that's the issue that's what's going on you know you understand you understand that you're being more royalist than the king here or more royalist than the folks who are carrying out this policy they don't believe what you're saying they don't believe that there is no effect a negative effect by using drone strikes or special operations night raids they know those that is the opposite they know that it's having the opposite effect and it's an ice like knowledge as i say in the woodward book i know we had we had this we have this conceit in the u.s. policy establishment something called recruitment and i know people in the military believe this and people are and are clandestine services believe it either i frankly don't believe it myself i think it's nonsensical well it's a very convenient belief is all i can say and it certainly has nothing to do with reality as i think receiving it i think it really is we're in a closer to the center stage of recruitment as a convenient belief is well ok i want to see fighters for the lad. fifteen hundred

years they've been recruited this is how it happens they're recruited by anger and grievances this is why they fight all the time i don't think so ok if i can go back to you david i q to comment generals comment about the we need your conflict we need more conflict i mean is that really necessary i mean i mean because it seems like and there's been an escalation of conflict and we're not getting what we want there maybe we are getting what we want but i don't understand it and the rest of the world doesn't either i mean what are we getting out of this so i think at least understand. not only do you not understand but with all due respect i think you're misquoting him i think what he said was. the united states in favor of reconciliation in afghanistan it's not enough. not now elements of the taliban but the know now but the taliban in order to reconcile unacceptable terms they need

to be under constant military pressure you're saying they have to so they have to surrender is that they have to surrender they have to surrender when they have the upper hand right now why would they even do that. they don't you know. it's an ongoing fight and you don't know who to surrender but they do they do have to accept certain terms and those terms include renunciation of violence acceptance of the surrenders and their current. wishes rather ok so go ahead this is the problem the idea that we're going to get the taliban which is by far a politically stronger than the afghan government to say that it's going to agree to join or you know to serve that that government and its present constitution is absurd because it's never going to happen and u.s. officials know that very well i just did a story last week quoting somebody who within the government saying yeah we know.

oh the terms that you know who they are through every real story that is based on every single story that you've cited is based on one quote from one person i don't believe that you can honestly think that our audience is going to fall for that kind of technique. i just i mean i would depend if there is an interest i don't look i think it will be should let gareth i'm not. going to give that that's in that no i don't know i think it's going to sort of take a side here i want to sort of take this idea as if he is a very interesting right going and legally i think what he he i think he makes he makes a very interesting point here i'm not sure why the united states government believes that reconciliation of this sort is possible nor necessarily nor necessarily it why is that why is that why we're there is that what's important about afghanistan and pakistan to us to have reconciliation between the karzai government the taliban really that's why we're spending the resources that we are i find that to be

a huge issue i find it to be a sign of the disarray of u.s. policy there so maybe i'm just. basically you know there are there. are i do with me ask you real straightforward question why are we there sure why don't we just leave it doesn't look like we're going to win i mean nobody thinks we're going to win any more hardly anyone why don't we just leave. i don't accept the premise of your question. you have a way of asking loaded questions and expecting me to agree with them but i don't i don't think it's true that hardly anybody thinks we're going to win and we're there first of all in order to destroy al qaida in afghanistan and in neighboring areas if we can and second of all to help afghans create a government that will be stable secure and minimally acceptable by international human rights and other standards i think those are very noble david i don't think

even you will be heard all the way out yes go ahead. even i usually do well you know that i know how you want and why you don't want to hear it presume why it why are you where do you get the nerve to presume to tell me and the audience what i believe that is not just a joke or to suggest surely disgrace oh you think actually believes that now who believes that now who are you going to i've. got and i think that is a list of the and i think and i think most of the people that i deal with who are involved in discussing analyzing and creating and implementing this policy believe it ok we should let you know you have got all you have to the contrary are anonymous comments from odd people that you happen to run across ok again i hear you want to know why we're book.