imagine your life on to the big cities. eco friendly. crystal clear water. soft. organic

food. living in harmony with nature. sounds impossible. some people have already chosen. a place on the sun on our feet in taiwan multis available in the land is tied to her tongue. tied pete the how it calls a hotel tonight be sure to type the hotel's hotel will show his the grand hotel room the show would hotel and some will do misty type the hotel kuvasz otoh photos from hotel resort evergreens the hotel type the grand victoria hotel gloria prince hotel oil hope springs resort and spa tied to a hotel while she plans on bus a photo you noted hotel the westin in taipei evergreen close a hotel in thailand thailand is hotel time ambassador type the hotel room full points buy shares and how would princess tell these splendid hotel into.

really. how would. every. politician.

fifteen rushing. to the arctic. well. how successful america's campaign terrorism over the past decade crosstalk is coming up next thanks for watching. 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 enter press service and another member of our team yes on the hunger all right gentlemen crosstalk rules and in fact that means you can jump in anytime you want in researching this program in 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 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 but 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 regimes right 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. talking about larger issues but i would say been long 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 fault 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 convoys 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 standard nobody's merely names like nobody's making that

claim here and. 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 oh it's 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 gary 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 it as i did ality turn it upside of gary's going to read 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 joint than

they did before they have much they have more easily popular support than there might be 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 at a cut who is the head of the center for terrorism law say 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 will use whatever if i was leon a sort of. 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 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 any living very good reasons a lot of the ranting courting iran iran has the united states is the most popular country and i don't know any other country in the middle east right kind of ironic though i mean where else is america popular i mean go through 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 anyone really you know he should be talking about what's required to what the strategic interest what's 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 that is a result 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 a vision is 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 affect 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 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 day with are. taking.

place make sand. but another's it sparkles and unexplainable interest. in a place where supernatural things are happening. those . hungry for the full story we've got it for. the biggest issues get a human voice ceased to face with the news makers. and . welcome back to rostock i'm purely to remind you we're talking about the u.s.

led fight against terrorists. 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 promised changes it seems pos poll says remain in place analysts point out president obama has merely extended that controversial policy as well his predecessor george w. bush and russian public opinion research center poll says that call it against terrorism fifty one percent of respondents deemed it ineffective 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 conflict we have do we have to have before there 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 in the white house and in the cia they're 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. i know you 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 that somehow if you mean the mean is not is it and 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 do 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. has 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 one 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 in 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 that as the just the opposite they know that it's having the opposite effect on us and i signal as i say in the woodward book i know we have 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 really is where the closer to the eastern edge of recruitment is a convenient belief is well ok i wanted 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 on or else comment about the we need your conflict we need more conflict i mean is that really necessary i mean i am because it seems like there's been an escalation of conflict and we're not getting what we want to 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 elisa understand. not. 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. 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 and paul they have to surrender when they have the upper hand right now why would they even do that. they don't you know. there'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 always aware of their target. which is 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 the 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 there are 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 put on this there is really just i don't look i think it will be should let garrett i'm not. going to give that direction 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 headlee guy i think 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 the 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 of 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 just. believe you know if there. are i did to 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 very i don't even like 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 really disgrace oh you think actually believes that now who believes that no. who are you going to i want to know the national guard and i

think that is the center 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 we will you then go ahead and you have to the contrary are anonymous comments from people that you happen to run across ok. if you want a one word book if you look at the white house so i think that again i'm going to say i guess i agree with gareth there are different issues that are laid out in the woodward book and it's not clear to me that this administration knows exactly what we're doing in afghanistan and i'm sorry i mean i may not agree with the policy but i'd at least like to hear it clearly articulated what it seems to me right now is the president's policy is a political policy it's not a strategic policy i'm more inclined to agree with the vice president i think it's an enormous issue and no i mean you know i would love to see

a national government come out of afghanistan i would love to see as many terrorists you know from the taliban killed as possible i just don't know what the strategic point is is it to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of bad elements of the what exactly is the issue here this is ministration has not made its policies clear all right well it's really i don't think i'll use it i may say so that. there's a reason to introduce this is. about this issue and there are certainly different objectives and there's certainly a case to be made that we can secure our minimal interests in afghanistan and pakistan as you know i have to jump in with run out of time i hope we don't we won't be doing this program ten years from now many thanks to my guest today david cole of policemen and gareth porter and thanks to our viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and remember cross talk rules.