but is it a real drawdown or just a rich. it's now a three thirty pm here in moscow with. headlines now britain has revealed it neglected to protect prisoners from abuse as part of its role in the u.s. rendition program as comes as american officials face floor seats from foreign detainees and claim they were tortured in overseas prisons. ukraine's xperia is in cordova charges of abuse of power allegedly losing her country hundreds of millions of dollars in energy fields yulia timoshenko called the hearing

a political farce staged by her rivals hundreds rallied to our support outside the court. and the families in india accuse the government all allowing the use of a controversial pesticide which they say is killing their children greet him the group's claim applying the chemicals is causing a generation of deformed children who don't live to see their twenty's. i know those are the headlines here on our next season peter lavelle and his guests debate why president obama's announcement to withdraw thirty three thousand u.s. troops from afghanistan wasn't welcomed by either antiwar activists or military officials that's coming your way right now. and. welcome to crossfire time peter all about exit strategy obama's long awaited plan

to start drawing down. troop levels in afghanistan is in play but is it a real drawdown or just a reduction of the so-called surge of eighteen months ago did obama capitulate to public opinion over military needs and will american and nato troops ever completely leave afghanistan to afghans. cross-talk u.s. afghan strategy i'm joined by gareth porter in washington he's an investigative historian and journalist also in washington we have sam said i he is senior director of iran programs at nonviolence international and in london we crossed the alexis crow she's a research fellow in the international security program at chapman house all right folks this is cross talk and that means cross talk rules in effect means you can jump in anytime you want there and i think go to you first in washington details of obama's pullback from afghanistan are becoming more and more clear are you

satisfied that it's legitimate or is it just all about domestic politics the united states obama is trying to satisfy public opinion without bail you maybe in the military all that much because it's still open ended even what we've heard about these plans american and nato troops will be in afghanistan for a very long time. well i wouldn't quite put it that obama is trying to satisfy public opinion in a sense opinion in the united states on afghanistan is way ahead of president obama in terms of the desire to withdraw our troops i mean the latest pew poll shows fifty six percent. to fifty eight percent want to withdraw our troops as soon as possible only thirty eight percent are interested in keeping troops there until the situation is stabilized called unquote so i mean that's really you know it's not that obama is satisfied in public

opinion what he's doing is primarily satisfying the interests of the pentagon in the military they have gotten most of i would say eighty percent of what they wanted whereas the faction in his administration was really concerned about the cost of the war got very little of what they wanted alexis and i know to you in london what is obama's priorities then because a lot of people see this is this kind of smoke and mirrors that it's not really a real drawback at least at this point because he's put drawing the number of troops is still there still really very few deadlines out there and maybe that's done it on purpose we can talk about later in the program but is this more driven by domestic politics and it's really happening on the ground in afghanistan well sure i mean i think the drawdown is actually slightly virtual draw down and it has to be just twenty three thousand it's self because after that after that withdrawal there will still be more troops in afghanistan then when obama took office. but i

think it's heavily steeped in domestic political considerations i mean as as gareth has pointed out you know americans are way ahead of this but i think it's a very convenient time after day after the killing of a large and i think it's very convenient time for him to associate reduction in troops with success in the counterterrorism strategy. and afghanistan what's confusing and what's very indicative of this short term sort of policy is that western democracies and satisfying to this is that the aims have been shifting constantly since success in winning in afghanistan is meant very different things as we've gone along and to begin with. and the americans were very much focused on counterterrorism and i self was focused on sort of counter when obama came into office we started talking much more about counterinsurgency petraeus and his boys brought their lessons from into afghanistan and so we switched more into a steep counterinsurgency role and now because we've had success and bin laden we

switch back into counterterrorism success it's just i think it's more indicative yeah you do in terms of going to sam and i find it really kind of remarkable just only a few weeks ago a month ago pentagon was saying what a success afghanistan was and now as we get to obama's speech and the details of it they're saying there's a dire need not to pull out i mean what's going on here again it's more smoke and mirrors i mean. we don't seem to have a clear picture of what game is in afghanistan and is closer we get to it the more the military is pulling back. well i don't consider the pentagon's position all that perplexing i mean the two positions. seem to be mutually exclusive but actually not there have been a significant amount of progress since troop surge about a year or eighteen months ago and there has been

a significant increase in the training of afghan forces and also the afghan police but at the same time what the pentagon and what bob gates and general petraeus are all concerned about is that they want to draw down but they don't want to draw down that precipitous now if you listen to some of the points that president obama made last night my understanding was that he was just going to announce that he was going to withdraw our around thirty thousand troops total by the end of next summer but i thought he was going to leave the rest of it pretty flexible and of course a few months after after the drawdown of the thirty thousand troops there will be the elections so then afterwards he has sort of a more political leader way but i was actually. pretty impressed that he did something that he didn't really have to do which is he determined the time when the

entire drawdown of the all or most u.s. troops and everything. turned to for indeed we've heard different when we had candidate obama and then president obama and now if i go back to gareth and one of the things are fine are interesting as well as going to defense gates also said that the u.s. is involved in. negotiations with the taliban what does that mean is that the clear is that it is mission of defeat of how to get out now and not dictating what kind of security arrangement be in afghanistan when quote unquote american troops leave . well not really i think the negotiating ploy of the united states at this point is to in a way have it both ways on one hand you know they're suggesting to the american people that we're really in the process of getting a political settlement here and we've succeeded in getting talks started

a course that's not really true they've had preliminary contacts in which the tell that have made it clear that they're not going to sit down with karzai regime particularly when the united states is not offering a timetable for withdrawal and so on the other hand what what's going on is the united states is trying to put pressure on the television to accommodate us interest us position the taliban should reach a settlement with karzai while the united states continues to have troops there to provide you know what they were guard as an insurance policy that's really not a viable position no independent analyst of the war and of the taliban regards this as a realistic negotiating position and so there's really kind of a flimflam going on with regard to these negotiations or these talks with the taliban you know electricity angle back to you in line and why in the world are the

taliban want to sit down with the united states and its allies and negotiate any kind of agreement when they can just wait them out they've done a pretty good job for ten years. well i think there's also quite interesting distinction to be made which is that western democracies basically although i start contributing nations continue to talk about withdrawal of combat troops first is that withdrawal of training operations and moving more combat troops into training operations. sexy fox said here last week he said oh well we aim to keep many more combat troops in play and see if i survive and it and take us back and forth between the pentagon and the white house does the taliban make such a distinction. yeah not really they don't make a distinction. so i mean you know the fact that we've called off combat troops means our soldiers aren't aren't in danger anymore what in theory but i mean as as some of the training operations that can be just as dangerous if an afghan opens

fire on training. however the taliban makes no such distinction so i think what we've been negotiating with the taliban for some time what's interesting is why this is been announced at this moment you know sam alexis makes a very good point here i mean maybe the united states and nato think of to make a difference between troops in the ngos but the taliban sees this is an occupation unless i mean what difference would it make to them they're just going to build this target these people as well i mean they're not going to make a distinction they haven't made a distinction. well i think. one point that's very important to keep in mind is that the taliban is not one individual run entity there are many different entities within what to call the taliban or i think a more accurate. phrase for it would be the taliban movement and what i think can be clever about this strategy of opening talks or even showing the willingness to want to talk to some elements within the taliban is that it can

immediately create a fracture within the taliban because they will likely be individuals within taliban who i mean you know the u.s. is suffering from a war fatigue the taliban are too it's not like they're robots and they just enjoy this decade long fight and they're ready with to go for another decade and surely when they see an opening some of them when they see an opening to have some sort of a dialogue or become part of the political process yes the radical ones will always be radical but it is actually a chance i think to shave off. people from the taliban and create fracture within a group without always remained very cohesive and with just a quick point we saw the fact of the strategy also in iran where it which is my area of expertise when when the when president obama expressed. interest in opening

talks with iran those of us who were of course the following the situation in iran and the conditions and what was going on within the regime immediately saw the fracture within. within the regime so on the one side there were people who were interested in talks and on the other side the more conservatives and hard hardliners who didn't and out split only you know left the regime or fractured and we can't and the winner was the u.s. so i think it's important to not refer to the taliban as one entity or one because he's. so and centralized organization. all right i want to jump in right here and went for a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the drawbacks in afghanistan stay with our. explained you can't. stay. in the lead and you want to go play.

live. in inflation cluster in the center of siberia one city has revolutionary ideas for the automotive industry you're a corporation interested sufyan fiction straight out of software to make three shallow screeds and the building blocks for russia's first nationwide four g. networks homeschooling toxicology of. the future coverage. the sun. moves.

can see. the full. welcome back across the uk i'm curious about remind you we're talking about washington's exit strategy from afghanistan. you can see. alexis and i know back to you in london we were just up we just heard before the break you know we shouldn't look at the taliban as one unified force and i think that's fair enough but after ten years how can the united states make the distinctions between different elements of the taliban who can

negotiate who they can negotiate who with and who they can because there was a report that came out last november that i think it was the cia maybe it was the defense pharma was involved with a taliban leader and they found out later the guy was just a scam artist some just a whole lot of money and ran away with it i mean just really amazing after ten years ok kid is that possible and i'd like to throw into the mix also is that with karzai there is he ever going to be can accept it is a legitimate leader of any group of the afghan people except for his family go ahead this is well this is exactly what i was just thinking as as you were discussing things this. in washington. primarily to begin with it's all good and well saying talking about the limits of the u.s. and its allies negotiating with with with the taliban and in all its guises but what happens when the u.s. and her allies think. and and how amenable will cause i need to negotiate with the taliban how strong will his government be to what extent will tribal factions

really starts to erupt because henry kissing a fantastic op ed piece in the new york times herald tribune last week or a couple weeks ago in which he talked about the way to get out of afghanistan and he said and kissing his inimitable way back through history and he says afghanistan always pulls together to fight off any kind of foreign occupation and once in foreign occupiers leave then it comes back to its own tribal factions and so really i think the real question is i'm sure it's very difficult for officers in in the u.s. army and the u.s. armed forces and in other armed forces that have been serving in afghanistan to see they were negotiating with the taliban i'm sure that it's very difficult for those families of soldiers that have been lost to see that but i think the real question is to what extent does cause i and his all administration are they powerless and also these kinds of discussions you know i mean we always hear these kind of gloom

and doom scenarios if we if the u.s. leaves and its allies leave too quickly it'll be a power vacuum and wanted to be a power vacuum irrespective of whatever timetable is there because after ten years we have been obvious who has the staying power and who has the stomach certainly elements within afghanistan irrespective of how you want to name them. well absolutely i mean the reality is that you know petraeus and gates want two more full fighting years as they call it with the majority of the increment the surge increment of u.s. troops to put pressure military pressure on the taliban in order to get them to cave in to to negotiate on u.s. terms that's not going to happen that's that's totally unrealistic and furthermore . you know i challenge the idea that the taliban is not united in regard to its

position on negotiations there is really no evidence that there is a split within the taliban everybody that i talked to who has been talking with the taliban. over the last couple of years says that their policy is still one that comes from a little more it has more on mars sanction and that there's really only one policy there are negotiations and it is to demand that the united states get out before there's going to be a settlement now you know i mean they say there has to be publicly they said there is to be complete withdrawal before a sudden takes place privately of course they acknowledge that there's going to have to be negotiations based on a timetable for withdrawal but the point that i would make in addition to respond to your question is that the there's nobody really on the ground in afghanistan who privately believes that these two more years of fighting is

going to make any fundamental difference you're right the taliban can wait us out. at the end of those two years and they will still be the strongest political military force in the country and that's why i would argue that that what obama has done is to accommodate the institutional political interests of the pentagon in the military. to continue the war for as long as possible for all kinds of internal. bureaucratic political reasons they want to continue to have troops there for as long as possible and the second point that i would make is the united states does not intend to get out that is the u.s. military the pentagon do not intend to get out there in term to keep combat forces there indefinitely that's if you read carefully the subtext of the obama speech but it's exactly what he was implying sam if i'm going to you i mean i jump in this is cross talk go ahead go ahead. i just want to go ahead and i think there is

a difference between saying. you know yes there's nobody i don't know if i would go . to the extent of saying there's nobody within the u.s. infrastructure in afghanistan or the u.s. foreign policy. wouldn't think two more years going to make a difference but there is an event if that's true there is a difference between that and saying there is no difference between leaving in three years and leaving all the troops in six months i mean there there there is a significant number of people the vast majority of the people within the state department and the pentagon who believe there will be a difference between what president obama is doing now and the alternative which a lot of people seem to want which is basically just pull the plug and leave immediately within three months older troops so it's important to make a decision it's not just about appeasing the pentagon as a before

a pentagon and general petraeus one and like good a guest pointed out they one of the law much longer presence in afghanistan what the reality is we have been there for ten years but for a significant portion of those ten years it was a half hearted effort because we got this track that way a war of choice in iraq you can't say we have been. in making you know the we have been having the same kind of performance for ten years. so i think that's another thing you keep in mind is that what president obama is doing is by reading go see any other responsible way of lying down this war you know we can't just rock will soon i can are all right here is real quick let me go to alexis and i want to ask all of you what's the worst case scenario going i guess go ahead. what will sam sam hasn't really responded to the point that you know maybe you can military looks

better after two more years of of military action against the taliban they can make all sorts of claims about how many they've killed but what difference does it make in the end it's not going to fundamentally change the reality but it's going to determine the future of afghanistan that's i think we're going to live here and let me address that let me address i think address that point i said i basically it may be true yes it may be true you may be right there maybe you're right the military is going to look better after two years if they get what they want and i think ultimately the pentagon and the pentagon is not the one that's making a foreign policy decision to president obama as a commander in chief and the pentagon is not always going to get his way but yeah you're right i personally agree with you i don't believe there were let me jump in a significant amount let me jump. in here we've heard dick lugar gloom and doom stories about withdrawing very quickly no we do not see the west does you know

three months last today after ground out of the country what's the worst case scenario for western security is the taliban going to start asking washington in london and paris. well i have to come back to just a point that was made about the diversion of resources from iraq and giving a half hearted effort in afghanistan and i think the primary problem with the rug is is that it upset about once of power in the middle east and allowed iran to become a regional sort of arbiter and disrupted the balance of power and therefore gave the rhine actually significant power of easily the taliban it is second the negotiations with with the us and iran near the taliban supply lines can be opened up so i think i think the primary problem with afghanistan is what we might turn the west's attention deficit disorder and these continually is continually shifting its policy and strategy and it does that in obama changed his view from moving away from counterterrorism to distance himself from the bush administration then he

since thirty thousand extra troops in a surge to because petraeus was successful now he's back going back to the counterterrorism operation and all of this for domestic political consolidation so i think that's that's one point. worst case scenario and now i want to know you guys are there i want to worst case scenario from all of you in the room for the rest of the program so what's the worst case scenario. oh well no one's mention pakistan and i think it's not necessary that the taliban starts attacking washington because let's not forget the taliban didn't i wouldn't say had a sort of global jihadist ideology having wanting to establish an islamic caliphate is not the same as having this ideology i mean in a borrowed a lot of concepts from the insurgency in iraq. and that's why patrice the strategy of counterinsurgency was so successful that worst case scenario is we're talking about a complete in a regional regional turmoil and india sits between. pakistan says between india and

china two nuclear powers. pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear capability and afghanistan is situated in between africa and in between iran and pakistan so i think state failure with regard to afghanistan and pakistan is what we've really got to be concerned with and then of course that has knock on effects to your security policy in london paris and washington ok gary time of year last one of the program. well i mean the idea that a taliban takeover of power the worst case scenario is going to cause a war between pakistan and india is really far fetched and i would just point out that. any reasonable analysis of the rationale for the war in afghanistan which is that we are preventing al qaeda from coming back to have a safe haven in afghanistan is failing to come to grips with the reality that

al qaeda is already well ensconced in pakistan that is the safe haven that they have carved out over the past ten years it's extremely safe secure much more secure than anything they ever had in afghanistan and there is absolutely no reason to believe after it is interested in going back to afghanistan the real problem is pakistan the united states is essentially denying that again because of the political interest and look we have to jump in here we've run out of time we'll see if the americans and its allies will ever leave afghanistan but he thinks and i guess today in washington and in london thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember prostate rules.

in india hotties available in the movie goer.