it is now at seven thirty pm here in moscow you with on c a reminder now top stories declassified documents reveal that the u.k. was happy to hand over terror suspects to the u.s. with little regard to what would be waiting for them in secret prisons one sunday washington's of jurisdiction hundreds ended up being tortured and abused without a trial. mourning the fate of the common currency is in serious doubt as europe agrees on another bail out the debt laden resist that urge the country to

get behind some savage spending cuts however some experts argue it's too late as the euro already has a both feet in the grave. plus the former prime minister over ukraine and goes on trial for abuse of power that's alleged to have cost the country millions of dollars yulia timoshenko faces up to ten years behind bars if convicted. by my colleague up till dawn is here in half an hour's time but for now people have ellen has crossed all guests debate why president obama's announcement to withdraw thirty three thousand u.s. troops from afghanistan was not welcomed by either antiwar activists or military officials that's next. you can. still. welcome the cross talk on people about exit strategy obama's long awaited plan to start drawing down troops 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 the afghans. can. still. get 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 side by 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 that means you can jump in anytime you want gareth i'd like to go to you first in washington these tales of obama's pullback from afghanistan or are we 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 alienating 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 troops from the latest pew poll shows fifty six percent. to thirty 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 court 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 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 trying the number of troops is still there still really very few good lines 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 a 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 bin laden i think it's very convenient time for him serious serious see a reduction in troops with success in the counterterrorism strategy. and afghanistan what's confusing and what's very indicative of this short term. policies of western democracies and satisfying because it's insurance 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 again with. the americans were very much focused on counterterrorism and i south was focused on sort of can't it's been 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 with bin laden we

switch back into counterterrorism success it's really i think it's more indicative yeah you do in terms of go to sam and i find it really kind of remarkable just only a few weeks ago a month ago the pentagon was saying what a success afghanistan was and there always be good speech in the details of it 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 close and we get to it the more the military is pulling back. well i don't consider 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 the troop surge about a year eighteen months ago and there has been a significant increase in the training of afghan forces and also the afghan police

but i perceive in time what the pentagon and what bob gates and general petraeus are all concerned about is that they want to drawdown but they don't want to drawdown 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 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 of all or most u.s. troops and everything we've heard we've heard you for indeed we've heard different when we had candidate obama and then president obama and now if i go back to garrett and one of the things i find interesting as well is it going to get to defense gates also said that the u.s. is involved in. negotiations with the taliban what does that mean is that a clear mission of defeat of how to get out now and not. dictating what kind of security range will be in afghanistan when 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 of course that's not really true they've had preliminary contacts in which the taliban 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'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 in a lexus and i go back to you in london why in the world are the taliban want to sit down with the united states and its allies in 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 particular although i stuffed into being asians continue to talk about withdrawal of combat troops first is that withdrawal of training operations and moving more combat troops into training operations. 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 then take his back and forth between the pentagon in the white house does the taliban make such a distinction. really don't make a distinction. so i mean you know the fact that we pull off combat troops means our soldiers. aren't in danger or what in theory but i mean as as some of the training operations it would be just as dangerous if an afghan opens fire on

a train and 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 that announced at this moment. 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 n.g.o.s but the taliban sees this is an occupation nonetheless i mean what would 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. i think. one point it's very important to keep in mind is the taliban is not one individual or one 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 cards or even showing the willingness to want to talk to some elements within the taliban is that it can

immediately create a fracture within 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 are robots and they just enjoy this decade long flight and they're ready 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. with otherwise remain 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 conditions and what was going on within the regime immediately saw a fracture within. within the regime so on the one side there were people who were interested in parks and on the other side the more conservatives and hardly hardliners who didn't and at 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 taliban as one entity or one because he's . and centralized organization. all right i have to jump in right here and went for a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the drawback in afghanistan stay with arctic. place you can play.

for the full slate we've got it for. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers on the hot seat. playing live. in inflation cluster in the center of sanghera one city has revolutionized the ideas for the automotive industry you're a cool bandages that suck the infection straight out of software to make free shuttle streets and the building blocks for russia's first nationwide four g. network terms going toxicology up to. the future covered. download the official anti allocation to your body for the i pod touch from the i.q. zaps to. life on the go. video on demand. my old cars and r.s.s.

feeds now in the palm of your. machine on the job call. ok. welcome back to cross talk i'm curious about remind you we're talking about washington's exit strategy from afghanistan. ok. alexis if i go back to you in london we were just 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 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 bar always involved with a taliban leader and they found out later the guy was just a scam artist and just

a whole lot of money and ran away with it i mean just really amazing after ten years it is impossible 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 with sam in washington. primarily to begin with it's all good and well saying talking about the direction 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. as 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 kissinger wrote a fantastic piece and then we were at 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 the 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 the u.s. army and the u.s. forces and in other armed forces that have been serving in afghanistan to see that we're 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 but want to be a power vacuum irrespective of whatever timetable is there because after ten years

we it's been obvious who has the staying power who has the stomach and it's 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 to 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 the on the right has mill on mars sanction and the thirst 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 say there is to be complete withdraw 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 you know bureaucratic political reasons they want to continue to have troops there for as long as possible and the second point that i would make use the united states does not intend to get out the u.s. military the pentagon do not intend to get out and turn to keep combat forces we are indefinitely but if you read carefully the subtext of the obama speech that's exactly what he was implying sam find do you i mean. jump in this is cross talk go ahead go ahead. i just want to go again i think there is a difference between saying that. you know yes there is 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 even 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 pulled apply again 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 highly before pentagon and general petraeus one and like you had a guest pointed out they want to go along much longer presence in afghanistan but

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 distracted by a war of choice in iraq you can't say we have been. making you know that we have been having the same kind of performance for ten years. so i think that's a no i think keep in mind is that what president obama is doing is i really go see any other responsible way of lying down this war you know we can't just drop will soon how i can we are all right here is real and we're going to go to alexis and i want to ask all of you what's the worst case scenario going i guess going. well we'll see some hasn't really responded to the point that you know maybe even 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 that is 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 i addressed that point i said i basically it may be true yes it may be true you may be right there may be 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 the president obama is 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 limits jump in here. let me jump. in here we've heard the gloom and doom stories about withdrawing very quickly you know we do see the west coast you know three months last peed off the ground out of the country what's the worst case scenario for western security is the taliban to start why 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 iraq is is that it upset advance of power in the middle east and allowed iran to become a regional sort of arbiter and disrupted that balance of power and therefore gave iran actually significant power visibly the taliban it is second the negotiations break down with with with the us in iran you know 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 it's continually shifting its policy and its strategy and it does that in obama changed his view from moving away from counterterrorism to distance himself from the bush administration then he's since thirty thousand extra troops in a surge to because petraeus was successful and 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 to be made worse case scenario. and i want to know you guys are a good one the worst case scenario from all of you in the room for the rest of the program so alexis what's the worst case scenario. oh well no one's mentioned 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 jihad its ideology having wanting to establish an islamic caliphate is not the same as having this ideology i mean in the god a lot of concepts from the insurgency in iraq. and that's why portrays the strategy of counterinsurgency was so successful that worst case scenario is we're talking about complete in a regional regional turmoil in india sits between. pakistan says between india and china two nuclear powers. pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear capability and

afghanistan is situated in between us in between iran and pakistan so i think other 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 in paris in washington ok gary time we realize 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 africa 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 you would have to jump in here we've run out of time so we'll see if the americans and its allies will ever leave afghanistan many thanks and i guess sitting in washington and in london thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember rostock rules.

good. in the united kingdom all she's available in the house bill and from forty one hotel the old waverly hotel they can also tell the millstone hutto some of the large country house holiday in the full good old government towns.