amount of they going to pay them to take them around oh well that's it for now but unfortunately they fully there's plenty more on our website at r.t. dot com and of course don't forget to follow me on twitter as well stay tuned more just ahead. the truth is that so much and there's a huge musician finds time to fly takes its strategy bomb as long awaited plan to start drawing down troops levels in afghanistan is in play but is it a real drawdown or just a real. ok tom are in here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

wealthy british. market. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cancer were no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. download the official t.m.p. cation giong phone the i pod touch from the i choose our. life on the

go. video on demand keys minefield calls and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. mission. call . the you can see. the a. welcome to cross talk time. all 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 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 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. 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 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 quote 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 or administration was really concerned about the cost of the war got very little of what they wanted electricity interview 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 a spoiled withdrawing 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 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 to associate rejection of troops with success in the counterterrorism strategy. and afghanistan but what's confusing and what's very

indicative of this short term. policies of western democracies and satisfying because it's issuance is that the aims have been shifting constantly since success in winning in afghanistan has meant very different things as we've gone along in to begin with. and the americans were very much focused on counterterrorism and i south was focused on sort of can't it's 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 if there's a i think it's more indicative. to go to sam and i find it really kind of remarkable this only a few weeks ago a month ago the pentagon was saying what a success afghanistan was and now we get to bomb

a 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 posing 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 at present time what the pentagon and what bob gates and what general petraeus are all concerned about is that they want to draw down but they don't want to draw down that precipitous now 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 throw out 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 if you. turn 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 i find interesting as well is it going 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 a 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 u.s.

interest the u.s. position the hotel of 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 know about you in london 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 particular although i start consuming nations continue to talk about withdrawal of combat troops first is that withdrawal of training operations and moving more combat troops into training

operations. secretary foxx said here last week that he said oh well we aim to keep many more combat troops and play and see if i survive and it and that placates back and forth between the pentagon in the white house does the taliban make such a distinction saqlain. yeah not really you don't make a distinction. so i mean you know the fact that we pull off combat troops means our soldiers aren't in aren't in danger anymore what in theory but i mean as as some of the training operations it 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 in sam alexis makes a very good point here i mean maybe the united states and nato would think of to make a difference between troops in n.g.o.s but the taliban sees this is an occupation

none the less 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 that's very important to keep in mind as the taliban is not one individual or one entity there are many different entities within what they call the taliban or a thing 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 the just enjoy this decade long flight and they're ready to go for another decade and surely when

d.c. and opening some of them when they see an opening to have some sort of a dialogue will become part of the political process yes the radical ones will always be radical but is actually a chance i thing to shave off. people from the taliban and create fracture within a group without always 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 the interest in opening talks with iran goes i was who were closely following the situation in or on 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 at split the you know left the regime more fractured and weekend 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. and centralized organization and i. are and i'm going to jump in right here and went for a short break and after the show break we'll continue our discussion on the drawback in afghanistan stay with our. little. sister. listen to. live. the thing. live live

live see. wealthy british scientists like. dr. market. find out what's really happening to the global economy with meit's cause or a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our team. came to. welcome back across town people about remind you we're talking about washington's

exit strategy from afghanistan. if you can. start. alexis 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 where they can because there was a report that came out last november that i think it was the cia maybe it was the defense department was involved with a taliban leader and they found out later the guy was just a scam artist and just make a whole lot of money and ran away with it i mean just really amazing after ten years ok 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 a except it is a legitimate leader of any group of the afghan people except for his family go ahead this is what this is exactly what i was just thinking as as you were discussing things with sound in washington. primarily to begin with it's all going

well saying you know talking about the die lemmas of the u.s. and its allies negotiating with the taliban and all its guises but what happened. when the us and her allies think. and and how amenable will cause a bead to negotiation with the taliban how strong will his government be to what extent will tribal factions really starts to erupt because it henry kissing a fantastic op ed piece in the new york times herald tribune last week or a couple weeks ago which he talked about the way to get out of afghanistan and he said and kissing and 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 war officer is

in the u.s. army and the u.s. armed forces and 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 published reports of these kinds of discussions you know again to i mean we always hear these kind of gloom and doom scenarios if we if the u.s. leaves and its allies leave quickly it'll be a power vacuum go on 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 certainly elements within afghanistan respective 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's 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 law nor it has mullah omar's 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 say there is to be complete withdrawal before

a sudden takes place privately of course they acknowledge that there is 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 very want to continue to have troops there for as long as possible and the second point i would make use the united states does not

intend to get out that is u.s. military the pentagon do not intend to get out there in time to keep combat forces there indefinitely that's if you read carefully the subtext of your gonna speech that's exactly what he was implying sam if i go to you i mean i jump in this is crosstalk go ahead go ahead. i just want to go ahead and 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 us infrastructure in afghanistan or do us foreign policy. wouldn't think two more years going to make a difference but there is a 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 that decision it's not just about appeasing the pentagon as a it's for pentagon and general petraeus one and like good a guest pointed out they wanted a long 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 it's on everything keep in mind is that what president obama is doing is i really don't see

any other responsible way of lying down this war you know we can't just. like in our all right here is where do we go to alexis and i want to ask all of you what's the worst case scenario going i guess go ahead. sam hasn't really responded to the point that you know maybe you can military looks better after a few 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 they'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 to you you may be right there may be the 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 just 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 live there laura linney jump in a significant amount let me jump. in here we've heard the gloom and doom stories about withdrawing very quickly you know we do see that the west does you know three months last boot off the ground out of the country what's the worst case scenario for western security is the taliban to disturb washington in london and paris. well i have to come back to just a point that was made about the version 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 a balance of power in middle east and allowed iran to become a regional sort of arbiter and disrupted that balance of power and therefore gave the ryan actually significant power of these of you the taliban in the second the

negotiations break down with with with the u.s. and 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 term the west's attention deficit disorder and he's 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 since thirty thousand extra troops you know a surge too because petraeus was successful and now he's got going back to the counterterrorism operation and all of this domestic political consolidation so i think that's that's one point. worst case scenario and i want to know you are you guys are good bantering i won the worst case scenario from all of you on the road for the rest of the program so what's the worst case scenario. but 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 one thing 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 petraeus the strategy of counterinsurgency was so successful there worst case scenario is we're talking about complete in a regional regional turmoil india sits between. pakistan says between india and china two nuclear powers. pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear capability and afghanistan is situated in between after an 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 and paris and washington ok gary time of your 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 that there is interest in going back to afghanistan the real problem is pakistan the united states is essentially denying that again because of the political interest and 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 many thanks and i guess to

be in washington and in london thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember rostock rules. marvin here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture.

a charmer been here broadcasting live from washington d.c. coming up today on the big picture. he.