>> ifill: later the president spoke to u.s. troops he plans to address the american people from afghanistan at 7:30 eastern time tonight. for more on all this, we turn to patrick quinn, kabul bureau chief for the associated press joining us now by telephone. patrick, when did you learn that a presidential visit was imminent? >> well, we only found out just shortly before he arrived. there were rumors he was coming. but it was a complete surprise, i think, to almost everybody in afghanistan that barack obama decided to come here on the anniversary of osama bin laden's death to sign this agreement. >> ifill: tell us what you can about this agreement. how significant is it? >> well, the deal is not... the deal is significant in that it defines or broadly defines the u.s. presence here after 2014 when most troops are scheduled to leave here, most combat troops. a lot of afghans have been concerned about how the united states will remain here. this agreement basically says that we commit ourselves to supporting afghanistan economically. you know, we'll support its development and we will retain a number of troops here in a counterterrorism role in the

post-2014 environment. mostly to chase after what's left of al qaeda. but this is a... signifies sort of a long-term commitment of the united states to afghanistan and more broadly to the region. >> ifill: even in the negotiating of this agreement, there have been tensions. of course we have documented all the tensions in the u.s.-afghan relationship, specifically with president karzai. was any of that in evidence today? >> not really. i think president karzai got pretty much what he wanted for his own domestic audience, his contingency. let's not forget that we had these very controversial night raids that they wanted the afghans to take the lead on. we signed a memorandum of understanding with the afghan government on that. there was a detainee issue which was a big sticking point, a memorandum of understanding was signed on that issue.

now, whether the afghans themselves can actually effectively take over the night raids and take over the detention centers is not important. what was important was the symbolism that allowed this thing to happen before. let's not forget the may nato summit in chicago. it is an election year. chicago is barack obama's hometown. >> ifill: we saw the president arrive under cover of darkness. when he makes his address to the nation it will be 4:00 a.m. in the morning. how extensive was the security in anticipation of this visit? >> well, nobody had a clue he was coming, so he basically flew in to another location. he did not fly into kabul. he flew into bagram, which is a heavily secured u.s. military facility. then he flew to kabul, where he met with president karzai and signed the strategic partnership agreement and then flew back to bagram, and then flew home, all under the cover of darkness.

which is very interesting, given the fact that we have been here for ten years and the president has to actually fly in in the middle of the night. >> ifill: the president said today, "together we have made much progress." is that the commonly held view as well among afghans? >> well, it depends on which afghans you're talking about. we've made progress in transitioning parts of afghanistan to afghan security control with the united states and the coalition troops being in a support role. but there is... peace has not come to afghanistan. the taliban are still fighting. the peace negotiations are... have broken down. we're in the middle of a major offensive in the eastern part of the country. i'm not quite sure how much has been achieved in ten years here. the war is not over. >> ifill: patrick quinn, kabul bureau chief for the associated press, joining us by telephone. thank you so much for joining

us. >> you're welcome. >> ifill: for more on the president's visit and the strategic partnership agreement he signed today, we turn to seth jones, who worked for the commander of u.s. special forces in afghanistan from 2009 to 2011, and is now a senior political scientist at the rand corporation. and brian katulis, a senior fellow at the center for american progress, where he analyzes u.s. foreign policy in the middle east and south asia. seth jones, does this... what you know of this agreement, does it represent a step forward in our relationship with afghanistan? >> well, i think what it does do is, it ensures that the united states does not make the mistake that it made in... at the end of the soviet wars, and that is completely leave. but what it doesn't do is, we have no indication of what the u.s. military footprint will be, how much aid it's going to continue to give, and what the very specifics of the u.s. relationship with afghanistan will be like after 2014. none of that is in this agreement. >> ifill: does this mean that this agreement, brian katulis, this agreement is about what's not going to happen as opposed

to what is going to happen? >> i actually think this is a very important agreement in sending a message, reassuring the afghans of enduring support at a time of transition. the u.s. is bringing its troops home. we have a plan to get down to 68,000 troops by the end of this year. they're going to reassess those levels, but i think it sends the signal and cuts through a lot of the debate here at home of whether we're staying or not. as seth said, it sends this message of enduring support for at least another ten years. now the devil is in the details of the financial commitments. and then how many troops will actually stay there in the longer term though. >> ifill: that's exactly the question. i'll ask you this and then seth as well, which is i always wonder about sending messages and whether the long-term commitment means anything more than those words. we don't have those numbers attached. >> the second thing that i think the agreement does do is set up a structure for this relationship that didn't exist before. there's a bilateral commission that puts the issue... focus on issues like corruption and political reform in afghanistan. i've not read the agreement

itself, but i've been told it has serious commitments from the afghan government on fighting corruption and political reform, which is as important... we could be building security forces on a foundation that's not very stable without those commitments in our afghan partners. >> ifill: seth jones? >> well, i think one issue that is still is not addressed-- and i know afghans continue to be concerned about-- is what will the structure look like that will fight against the taliban and the range of other insurgents groups including the haqqani network. many afghans are concerned about their own survival. will the taliban take control of territory? will they eventually overcome? it still doesn't get by some concerns that the u.s. is militarily abandoning afghanistan especially when we have neighbors like iran and particularly pakistan that are supporting insurgent groups.

>> ifill; there was a semi- annual report that came out of the pentagon. one of the things they said is there were long-term and acute challenges from neighboring pakistan and widespread corruption in the afghan government. does this do anything to address that or do we just tiptoe around those issues? >> this agreement again highlights the importance and the urgency of the afghan partners to actually deal with those issues, especially corruption. the biggest problem longer term will be pakistan. this is a major challenge we've not been able... you know, the bush administration and the obama administration has had significant challenges in getting compliance from the government in pakistan. i think we're still working those issues. that's the biggest strategic challenge right now. >> ifill: is this in the end, the visit, the agreement, everything, is it more substantive or symbolic? >> well, i think it is mostly symbolic. again, i would say it is useful to let afghans and neighbors know that the united states will be committed to some degree over the long run. but again the devil is in the details. we don't have the details. the administration hasn't

provided the details of what the military commitment will be like over the long run. i think that in the end will be crucial. >> ifill: let me ask you about the symbolism because of course today is the one-year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden. do you doubt that there is any coincidence there? >> i actually think that they were trying to get this agreement before the nato summit in about two weeks in chicago. i actually think, yes, the symbolism is very portant. it closes a chapter in a sense. i think what was driving this was policy not politics. because the details of what is the enduring commitment not only from the u.s. but from our nato allies will come in discussions at chicago and then follow-up conferences in japan. i think having this agreement makes those discussions much more constructive and productive both in chicago and japan. >> ifill: seth jones, do you agree with that? >> i do agree. the chicago meetings were incredibly important. were viewed as important. and this long-term strategic partnership, i think, of what was important was signed before chicago.

again we have a lot of issues that have not been entirely addressed, especially the role of neighbors. this document does talk about the importance of a strategic regional relationship. but again we don't have that right now. >> ifill: we have been tracking, brian, the drawdown, the gradual drawdown of the u.s. footprint in afghanistan. does this or this discussion affect that at all? >> i don't think it does. i think as i understand general allen, our top commander in afghanistan, will conduct an assessment of the surge troops are home. we'll be down to 68,000 this fall. they'll do another reassess many of the security situation, importantly how the afghan security forces are doing. so i think those calibrating the pace of withdrawal will be based on the conditions on the ground and whether the afghans are actually stepping up. i think this agreement again sends this message that we're going to be there for a long time but it also calibrates it in such a way we're stick ing with the transition plan as well. >> ifill: being there for a long time, seth jones, does that mean continuing military civilian

training, u.s. forces doing that job? >> well, the document does note that it is important that the united states remains to conduct training of afghan national security forces. i would also assume it means training for the afghan local police. it's the tribal/sub-tribe clan element that are providing security in rural areas. but again, the numbers are not clear, and what kinds of forces, whether they'll be conventional or special operations. what role they'll play is not identified in the document. >> ifill: i have to ask you both about another item in this pentagon report because we've been covering every few weeks it feels what the report calls significant shocks to the relationship, whether it's burning of korans or the killing of civilians or the mutilation of corpses. does this diffuse that tension, brian? >> i don't think it necessarily diffuses all of those tensions but it sets a new tone. again it structures the

relationship in such a way that if there were shocks like this that we have a structure to absorb those shock absorbers. we have commissions that will sit down in a bilateral way and talk about the long-term commitments that we have. the incidents of afghan soldiers killing our soldiers are tactical shocks but overall we have a structure that's being built to provide enduring support for afghanistan, something that didn't exist when we left in 1989. >> ifill: are those emotional shocks that nothing can speak to? >> to a certain extent they are. but those emotional shocks can spill over into politics. if you don't have a structure in our bilateral relationship that can absorb those, i think what we're doing in this is saying let's turn the page on this and let's figure out how to move forward in the transition. >> ifill: what do you think about that, seth jones? >> well, i think among other things what this agreement does is allow the u.s. to establish a... relationships with key partners in the region and in afghanistan, establish a long- term training issue. so it is very useful in that sense.

most afghans do remember the 1989-1990, 1991 abandonment by the u.s. of afghanistan. at the very least this document gets the u.s. out of that fear. >> ifill: i have to ask you both briefly also at the end of this seth jones starting with you, do you believe that karzai is a reliable partner at this stage? >> i think hamid karzai has been a reliable partner for at least part of the time. in a sense, though, that point may be moot soon because there are elections that are expected to happen. the dates actually have now been... gone back and forth between 2013 and 2014. but i think in general he's been good enough. that's really the question in afghanistan. can you have a leader that is good enough? if you look at his support polls among public opinion polling data, he still gets up in the 60% category which is frankly better than what we have in the united states and in most of europe.

>> ifill: brian katulis, good enough? >> it's been mixed. the key question though is how do we help him execute a political transition? we talk about a transition as a security dynamic and what our military does, but equally important are what are the political institutions and the economic institutions that are being built? president karzai is going to have to step down someday. what this agreement does is elevates those issues of political and economic sustainability. >> ifill: brian katulis of the center for american progress and seth jones of the rand corporation, thank you both very much. >> thanks, gwen. >> thank you. >> brown: still to come on the newshour, the persident's speech; consumers and banks after the financial crisis; babies born addicted to drugs; research on growing nehuman tissue; and rights and wrongs for the g s. and china. but first, the other news of the day. here's har csreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: five men have been arrested in an alleged plot to bomb a bridge near cleveland, ohio. the f.b.i. announced today that the men were taken into custody overnight.

they allegedly targeted the brecksville-northfield high level bridge, which crosses part of the cuyahoga valley national park. agents said the suspects thought they had planted explosives at the site. in fact, an f.b.i. informant had sold them "dummy" explosives. >> a myriad of coordinated and investigative techniques in order to eliminate the risk of violence and protect the public. at no time during the course of this investigation was the public ever in danger. >> sreenivasan: the f.b.i. said at least three of the men were self-described anarchists, but were not affiliated with international terrorism. some had attended occupy cleveland events in the past. but an occupy spokesman said they were not affiliated with the group. across the globe, protesters marked this may day with outrage over tough times and austerity measures. in spain, thousands took to the streets of madrid to oppose government budget cuts and other steps. there were similar protests in greece and in france. meanwhile, in new york, hundreds of protesters with occupy wall street marched on the offices of major banks and media organizations. marchers also descended on downtown oakland, california, blocking traffic in places.

they tried to close down some businesses that ignored calls for a "general strike." wall street got a lift today. stocks rose on news that manufacturing expanded last h month at the fastest clip since june. the dow jones industrial average added 65 points to close at 13,279. the nasdaq rose four points to close at 3050, its highest closing in more than four years. automakers saw mixed results in the u.s. for april. chrysler reported today that truck and jeep sales boosted its business by 20%. and toyota reported sales increases of 12%. it said inventories have returned to what they were before last year's earthquake and tsunami in japan knocked out plants. on the other hand, ford and g.m. reported april sales fell 5% to 8%. a parliamentary committee in britain condemned media magnate rupert murdoch today. the panel's report came after months of investigating illegal phone hacking by a murdoch tabloid and his influence over politicians and police. but the committee was deeply divided, as labor party members blasted murdoch, and

conservatives objected to the findings. we have a report from tom bradby of independent television news. >> reporter: these people corrupted our country. they brought shame on our police force and our parliaments. they lied and cheated, blackmailed and bullied. we should all be ashamed when we think how we followed them for so long. rupert murdoch is not fit to run an international company like this. >> reporter: taken to its logical conclusion that would mean taking from murdoch an enormously profitable tv station he founded but there's not the evidence to justify this said the tories. >> no member of the committee could find it in their hearts to say that either murdoch had misled the committee. nobody. even in the reports as published. therefore, it did appear to us that something negative had to be found to say about rupert murdoch since nobody would conclude that either he or his son had misled our committee. >> reporter: what did committee

agree on? some executives had misled theme hacking. do you have anything to say about that? >> it's already out there. >> reporter: this committee report lost a lot of clout by being us obvioly split along party lines but labor's total declaration of war is a fascinating gamble. a bold and brave or absurd and foolish one, depending on your point of view. >> sreenivasan: murdoch said today he found the report "difficult to read," and deeply regrets what took place. now, the agency that regulates british broadcasting will review the findings. it could force murdoch to divest part of his stake in b-sky-b, british sky broadcasting. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: and we turn once again to our series, "after the fall," our look at what's changed and what hasn't since the financial meltdown of 2008. in recent days we've examined the housing market and risk and regulation on wall street. our focus tonight: consumers and

banks, and attitudes toward credit and debt. for that, we're joined by adam levin, chairman and co-founder of credit.com, a consumer education advocacy group. he's former director of new jersey's consumer affairs division. james chessen, chief economist for the american bankers association, an industry trade group. and kathy kristoff. she reports on personal finance for cbs "moneywatch" and "kiplinger's personal finance." kathy kristof, let's start with consumers. are people generally more willing to take on debt now? if so, who is doing it and what kind of debt? >> consumers are definitely taking on more debt. certainly on average. what you see are two different groups of consumers. we have people who never really had a problem in the financial crisis. they didn't lose their jobs. they never were over extend extended. they've never had difficulty in paying their bills but they've been very cautious over past

couple of years. right now they're in very good shape because rate now the debt they have is is at lower interest race. mortgage rates in particular have gone down. for most families that means that 30% of your budget is actually at a lower price. you're in good shape. the other side of the coin are the consumers who did have real problems in the financial crisis. some of them lost their homes. a lot more declared bankruptcy. and oddly enough, those consumers are also actually in a better spot right now because, while they lost assets, they also lost that debt. so going forward they're better able to borrow. and now you have.... >> brown: let me bring in jim chessen here. does that jibe with what you're seeing, a two-tiered market? >> that's absolutely correct. debt levels are down. we've also seen that the amount of monthly income that people have, the amount that they devote to debt, is at a 28-year low.

so we've seen a significant reduction in the amount of debt held. we've seen savings go up. so we've seen a very good improvement on consumer debt levels. now as kathy said we know there's people that have had trouble but the good thing now is is they have an opportunity for a second chance. in products that will help them rebuild the credit that they need to buy the kinds of product that they want. whether it's a car... or so they can buy a house. >> brown: what impact have regulatory changes had? i know you've looked at this push for more transparency in loans, in ending. >> well there's been a great deal more transparency. there has been a great deal pour restraint in certain areas of fees on the part of financial institutions. and consumers in general are in a position where more

information is available to them but it's now their responsibility to be able to actually read that information, digest the information, and make an intelligent decisions based upon that information. plus we also have the consumer financial protection bureau. we have more people actually looking at the problems, studying the problem and trying to see if what we see today is a good omen or a warning sign and the head lamp of the oncoming locomotive as opposed to the light at the end of the tunnel. >> brown: adam, just to stay with you. what do you see in terms of consumers' attitudes? is there for a fear of taking on debt? were there lessons learned after what happened four years ago? >> again i think that some people may well be taking on more debt out of necessity because we have a stagnant economy. and we also have a stubborn unemployment rate. some people may in fact have a much healthier attitudes about credit and debt than they've ever had before. remember while we're looking at this particular kind of debt, there's another horrifying debt

that's exploding right now that also impacts so many people. that's student debt which is now eclipsed auto debt and credit card debt. so this may also be part of an entire mosaic where consumers are looking at the entire picture and saying i really have to be more responsible in this area because i'm being eaten alive some place else. >> brown: kathy kristoff, fill in that picture a little bit more. you start talking about the riskiest borrowers? do you see them getting into the market more and do you see lenders reaching out to them once again as they were earlier? >> you are seeing them cautiously getting back into the market where they can. but there are some people who are not borrowing because they don't have the opportunity. their credit got so trashed in the financial crisis that they will not be allowed to borrow for a little while. there are tentative feelers out to get some of these people and certainly to get people with thin credit files as opposed to bad credit files so college

students, for instance, are being segregated from the bad credit risks to the new credit risk. and those people are being offered credit. and they're taking it. you know, again consumers are in a better position to handle the credit they're getting. and so i don't see this as a worrisome trend. >> brown: jim chessen, are banks or some banks getting back into this business of lending to risky borrowers again? one of the big problems, of course, from the bubble. >> there's a whole range of risk, right, from the best credit to the people that, as kathy said, really have very poor credit. banks are treading cautiously. i agree with kathy on that. they want to make loans. they know now with the economy improving and jobs and income improving that the risk of lending is now much lower than it was before. so they want to look at those consumers that really have the ability to repay that debt. it doesn't do banks or customers any good to put hands... to put

credit in their hands if they can't repay it. we don't want to repeat the lessons we've had before. so both banks and consumers i think are being much more prudent, much more cautious. i think that's appropriate. >> brown: some of the regulations took some of the ability of banks to make money, to charge some of the fees they did in the past. >>. >> banks are in the business of making loans, right? that's what they do. they're their bread and butter. they want to make loans. it may shock some people that two out of every three years, fdic-insured banks have been in business for more than 50 years. you don't stay in business unless you treat your customers right, make sure they have the credit that they need and that they can repay it. that's what banks want to do now. the risky lenders are out of business now. the banks that have survived today are the healthy ones that are going to be here for the next 50 or 100 years. they want to get credit in the hands of their customers that can handle it. >> brown: adam levin, what do

you see in terms of the side of the banks responding to the various regulations that were put in place over the last few years? >> well, the banks they find themselves in a bind. they're looking for alternate revenue generation sources. a lot of the bankers i've talked to said, look, we have to find ways to increase our footprint with your existing customers and make a compelling case with other customers because frankly there was a period of time when the bigger banks were getting hammered by credit unions and smaller banks as consumers were expressing and manifesting their anger. so, you know, there is the continuing search for fees. if they will shift from one to another and they'll go with it. for instance, consumers, the question is, how consumer credit card limits, have they increased because consumers are moving away from debit cards that they had been moved into because once the swipe law went into effect and limited fees on swipe and rewards were taken away from

debit and fees were raised on debit, the consumers then were migrating back to credit cards and there was also a greater demand for credit cards. banks are going with the flow on that too. is it because the boat is rocking or because there really is a new attitude about it? this is a work in progress. >> brown: kathy kristof, the last word from you. is it a work in progress and whicdirection is it going? >> credit is always a work in progress. like everything else, there are business cycles. we've left the cycle or the point in the cycle when nobody is lending and nobody can get credit unless they don't need any money. and we're going into the credit is easing and people... but people are still cautious. banks are still cautious. then we'll go to the point where they're not cautious and people overspend and banks lend too much money to them until everybody hangs themselves and we start all over again. it's kind of the nature of the beast.

at the moment i think we're still in a position where people are borrowing in a judicious way and banks are lending in a reasonable way. so at the moment there's nothing to worry about. >> brown: all right. we'll stop there then.bv kathy kristoff, adam levin and jim chessen, thank you all three very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: i'm gwen ifill. welcome to those viewers who are just joining us for a special report on president obama's surprise visit to afghanistan today. in a moment, the president will address the nation from an aircraft hangar at bagram airfield just outside kabul. earlier tonight, mr. obama and president karzai signed an agreement pledging u.s. support for afghanistan until 2024. ten years after nato forces wrap up their combat role in the country.

senior administration official said both presidents wanted to sign the strategic partnership agreement ahead of the nato summit later this month in chicago. tonight's speech comes on the first anniversary of the u.s. raid in pakistan that killed osama bin laden. the president left washington d.c. monday night at midnight, and air force one landed in afghanistan under the cover of darkness. he spoke earlier today to u.s. troops in bagram. there have been about 1800 americans killed in afghanistan. he expects... he's expected to speak about that as well as the anniversary of this osama bin laden killing one year ago today. here is the president of the united states. >> good evening. from bagram air base. this outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home. but for over a decade it's been close to our hearts. because here in afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have

sacrificed to protect our country. today i signed an historic agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defines a new kind of relation between our countries. a future in which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states. a future in which war ends and a new chapter begins. tonight i'd like to speak to you about this transition. but first, let us remember why we came here. it was here in afghanistan where osama bin laden established a safe haven for his terrorist organization. it was here in afghanistan where al qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. it was here from within these borders that al qaeda launch the attack that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children. and so ten years ago, the united states and our allies

went to war to make sure that al qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. in 2002 bin laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe haven in pakistan. america spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in iraq. al qaeda's extremist allies within the taliban have waged a brutal insurgency. but over the last three years, the tide has turned. we broke the taliban's momentum. we built strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. one year ago from base here in afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed osama bin laden. the goal that i set, to defeat al qaeda and deny it a chance

to rebuild, is now within our reach. still there will be difficult days ahead. enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. but tonight i'd like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in afghanistan. first, we've begun a transition to afghan responsibility for security. already nearly half of the afghan people live in places where afghan security forces are moving in to the lead. this month at a nato summit in chicago, our coalition will set a goal for afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. international troops will continue to train, advise and assist the afghans and fight alongside them when needed. but we will shift into a support role as afghans step forward. as we do, our troops will be coming home. last year, we removed 10,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan.

another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. after that, reductions will continue at a steady pace with more and more of our troops coming home. as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014, the afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country. second, we are training afghan security forces to get the job done. those forces have surged and will peak at 352,000 this year. the afghans will sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military. in chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term afghan force. third, we're building an enduring partnership. the agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the afghan people. as you stand up, you will not stand aalone. it establishes the basis far

our cooperation over the next decade including shared commitment to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. it supports afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people, and it includes afghan commitments to transparency and accountability and it protects the human rights of all afghans. men and women, boys and girls. within this framework, we'll work with the afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014. counterterrorism and continued training. but we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling in cities and mountains. that will be the job of the afghan people. fourth, we're pursuing a negotiated peace. in coordination with the afghan government and my administration has been in direct discussions with the taliban, we've made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with

al qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by afghan laws. many members of the taliban from foot soldiers to leaders, have indicated an interest reconciliation. the path to peace is now set before them. those who refuse to walk it will face strong afghan security forces, backed by the united states and our allies. fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in south asia. in chicago, the international community will express support for this plan and for afghanistan's future. and i have made it clear to its neighbor, pakistan, that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects pakistan's sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. in pursuit of a durable peace, america has no designs beyond an end to al qaeda safe havens and respect for afghan

sovereignty. as we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. the answer is clear. our goal is not to build a country in america's image or to eradicate every vestage of the taliban. these objectives would require many more years. many more dollars. most importantly many more american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda. we are on a path to do exactly that. afghans want to assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. that requires a clear time line to wind down the war. others will ask, why don't we leave immediately? that answer is also clear. we must give afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. otherwise our gains could be lost. then al qaeda could establish itself once more. and as commander in chief, i

refuse to let that happen. i recognize that many americans are tired of war. as president nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen or looking into the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. i will not keep americans in harm's way a single day longer than is is absolutely required for our national security. but we must finish the job we started in afghanistan and end this war responsibly. my fellow americans, we've traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. yet here in the pre-dawn darkness of afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. the iraq war is over. the number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half. and more will soon be coming home. we have a clear path to fulfill our mission in afghanistan while delivering justice to al qaeda.

this future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. in an age when so many institutions have come up short, these americans stood tall. they met their responsibilities to one another and to the flag they serve under. i just met with some of them. and told them that as commander in chief, i could not be prouder. in their faces we see what is best in ourselves, in our country. our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, marines, coast guardsmen and civilians in afghanistan have done their duty. now we must summon that same sense of common purpose. we must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve and the opportunities they have earned. and we must redouble our

efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice. as we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it's time to renew america. an america where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. a united america. of grit and resilience. where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown manhattan and we build our future as one people, as one nation. here in afghanistan, americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. today we were called to follow and those who suffered wounds both seen and unseen. but through dark days we have drawn strength from their example and the ideals that have guided our nation and led the world. a belief that all people are created equal and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

that is the light that guides us still. this time of war began in afghanistan. and this is where it will end. with faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand and forge a just and lasting peace. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states of america. >> ifill: the president of the united states at bagram airfield in afghanistan. we're here now with seth jones who worked for the commander of u.s. special forces in afghanistan from 2009 to 2011. his latest book. and brian katulis, a senior fellow where he analyzes u.s. foreign policy in the middle east and south asia. seth jones, what struck you the most about those remarks? >> well, i think it's very clear that the president is committed to pulling u.s. forces out of afghanistan especially combat forces.

and his comment that the pace will be consistent and the forces will leave i think gives everybody a sense that he is committed to withdrawing the vast majority of the american forces from afghanistan. i think the trend is very clear. >> ifill: brian katulis, he laid out a lot of ideas for how the u.s. and the afghan forces will collaborate in the next year or two. are they achievable? >> i think they are. i think this speech was trying to strike the right balance between transition and ending this phase of the war. and offering enduring support. i think some of the most difficult challenges will come actually in the political and diplomatic sphere. he talked about peace with the taliban. he talked about the need to build enduring afghan institutions. i think this is one of the most difficult tasks, especially the diplomacy with elements of the taliban. because it's connected to regional dynamics and the problems of pakistan. so i think there are a lot of tough tasks ahead. this was not a mission accomplished speech.

this was there's more work that needs to be done but we're ending this phase and continuing this transition. >> ifill: seth jones, i want to talk about that taliban thing because there have been ongoing conversations we're told with the taliban between u.s. officials. it seems to be a stop-start. where do they stand tonight? >> for the moment we know that the taliban has said that they are not willing to negotiate. there do appear to be some negotiations continuing privately. but what is interesting is there's also been indications this week based on the bin laden, that some of the same individuals that are negotiating with u.s. diplomats have also been in regular touch over the last several years with senior al qaeda leaders including the number one and al qaeda's deputy. i think there is a very legitimate question about how committed the taliban senior leadership is to a peace deal. i would say what we know right now is it does not appear to be very committed. >> ifill: brian katulis, it

was very interesting at the beginning of the president's speech he was making the case repeatedly that afghanistan is the center of the conflict. it was the center of all of this. everything that's happened since 9/11. i wonder what he can do, what this report does, what this agreement does to follow through on that notion of afghanistan being kind of central, a lynch pin for so much else? >> it's a very comprehensive agreement. it's nine, ten pages. i just skimmed it. what it lays out is a very comprehensive approach for supporting institutions in the regional security framework, the sorts of things that did not exist in 1989 when the soviets withdrew and were defeated. those sorts of things i think can safeguard against the emergence of some sort of safe haven or taliban-al qaeda type groups in afghanistan. >> ifill: seth jones, how critical is it that these promises be kept? who was the audience tonight for this speech? >> i think the audience largely was the united states

domestic population. his comments near the end that the united states needs to focus on its own problems, its own economic problems, that we want to limit the number or the number of american dead soldiers. i served in afghanistan. that part of the speech was clearly directed at domestic audience. but i think the strategic partnership was also an attempt to indicate to afghans and to neighbors in the region that there would be some longer-term u.s. commitment. i think without a doubt there were multiple audiences but certainly probably the most important was the american one. >> ifill: and there's a regional role that afghanistan plays also in its role as a launching pad, as the president said. there wouldn't be bases anymore in afghanistan after a certain point. but for other concerns in that region, afghanistan has been our physical spot. >> absolutely. what's interesting is the agreement has a clause that says the territory will not be used to launch attacks against any of afghanistan's neighbors.

but it also has other clauses that talk about afghanistan's territorial integrity and the need to help afghanistan with its self defense. some of the things like the strikes that you see coming against pakistan could be justified in those sort of terms to say, look, pakistan has been supporting a lot of the insurgent groups that have been trying to undermine security in afghanistan and under mine this government. what will be interesting, as we have talked about, is the devil in the details of the implementation. there needs to be a by bilateral security agreement that is negotiated over the next year or so in addition to this framework agreement. >> ifill: the president's goal tonight was to try to calm all parties. >> absolutely. i mean obviously the american public was the primary audience because he was doing this at 7:30 p.m. i think it's 4:00 a.m. in afghanistan. but there are clear messages there. when he said that when you stand up, we'll stand with you. that was quite a contrast to, say, president bush's formulation on iraq which is when you stand up, we'll stand down. >> ifill: not exactly standing

down. brian katulis, thank you very much and seth jones as well. that ends our special coverage. some stations will be leaving us now as we rejoin the newshour. >> ifill: now, a new study highlights a troubling spike in babies born addicted to painkillers. ray suarez has the story. >> suarez: on average, every hour a baby is born in the u.s. addicted to a class of drugs that ranges from her wynn to prescription pain killers. a new study published this week in the "journal of the american medical association" looked at the growing number of mothers taking pain killers and the babies born hooked on drugs. the lead author of the study is dr. stephen patrick who practices medicine at the university of michigan and he joins me now. dr. patrick, welcome.

what did you study to conclude that the number of babies with drugs in their system hadn't just increased over the last decade but nearly tripled? >> well, we looked at neonate al syndrome which is a syndrome that new borns experience after they're born. it happens after the newborns have been exposed to opiates during the pregnancy. we found that the rate of babies diagnosed with drug withdrawal grew by threefold. in 2009 we noted that more than 13,000 babies were born with drug withdrawal, or about one baby born per hour. >> suarez: what drugs are we talking about here? drugs we already knew americans were taking a lot more? >> the other part of our study we looked at mothers using opiate at the time of the delivery. that increased five fold over the last decade. we were not able to tell the exact type. but opiates are a broad class.

it includes everything from heroin to pain relievers like vicodin and even methadone. >> suarez: are these prescription drugs? >> unfortunately from our study we were not able to determine that. that was a limitation of our study. what we do know looking at data that's been reported by the centers for disease control, we know that over the last decade, prescription opiates have quadrupled in the sales and deaths attributed to them have also quadrupled. we think that might be one explanation for the rapid increase we see. >> suarez: if we already knew there was a problem with these drugs, was it inevitable they were going to turn up in the bloodstreams of babies? >> you know, i don't know if i would say that. i would say that the increases i think this study shows that multiple people are affected. i hope this study gets attention to think about ways that we can prevent this. i think that this should get the attention of federal and state government policy makers to think about ways that we can control our opiates maybe in a more optimal way. often in our health system we

react to problems. i think that this study calls for a public health approach. many states are already doing things to limit the uses of opiates such as registries of prescriptions that are written so that we can tell if some of the doctor shopping, or going from one doctor to another to get the same prescription. it's strategies to limit opiate exposure that will prevent this problem way before it becomes an issue especially in our newborns. >> suarez: many states have moved to a more punitive, more criminal justice-based response to women who take drugs during or after pregnancy. is that part of the answer? >> i think blame is not always helpful. what i think would be most helpful is again thinking about this from a public health perspective, preventing this before it even becomes an issue. i think that does come from a public health standpoint, limiting opiates before they're even used. i think we can do this through robust public health programs to think about the way we prescribe and think about statewide programs that can limit abuses

and diversion of these drugs to things that are legal uses. >> suarez: what are the consequences for newborns who have been exposed to drugs during their mother's pregnancy? >> the newborns who experience drug withdrawal often are more irritable. they're inconsolable and sometimes have breathing problems. they oftentimes have difficulty feeding and loose stools. rarely they can have seizures. they're more likely to be born low birth weight. >> suarez: your study found significant increases in the cost of caring for those children. what is driving those increases? >> we found that from 2000 to 2009, the costs or the average hospital bill actually for these newborns across the entire united states increased from $190 million to $720 million. we think that this increase is probably driven by the average length of hospital stay. these babies on average had a length of stay of around 16 days

compared to all other u.s. hospital births of three days. as well as the rapid increase in the sheer number of these babies. >> suarez: what's the long-term prognosis for these babies? do we even know? >> that's a great question. the data is still out there. i think this study, i hope, will gain attention to this issue. and get more research dollars to study this. we know that over the last couple of decades that there have been some studies that have followed babies that have been exposed to opiates and found there are adult developmental delays. there are studies that show no issues. what we need are big, robust studies to follow these babies as they grow into school age and adulthood to get an idea of what the consequences are beyond the time of birth. we don't know what the consequences of some of these opiates are. we don't always know the exact consequences of some of the medicines we use to treat these babies either. >> suarez: we know many american women get little or no prenatal care. should the prenatal care that women taking drugs are getting include more advice, more screening, more diversion to

lower the number of babies born with drugs in their system? >> prenatal care is a good thing. i think anything that allows women to, you know, spend more time with their obstetrician and get good counseling will improve care. certainly from my perspective as someone who takes care of babies after they're born knowing some of these issues before the babies are born helps me identify and treat these babies most appropriately. >> suarez: dr. patrick, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much. president obama made a surprise visit to afghanistan and signed an agreement on a long-term u.s. commitment. then he addressed the nation saying the light of a new day is dawning after years of war. he also said that the defeat of al qaeda is within reach one year after the raid that killed osama bin laden. and that's the newshour for tonight.

i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm geoffrey brown. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow meaning.in u d good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> citi turns 200 this year. in that time, there have been some good days and some difficult ones. but through it all, we persevered. supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. >> by nordic naturals. >> at& >>t&t. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life.

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org captioned by media access group at wgbh

tonight... jeremy schaap: he is the quintessential olympic hero. margaret macmillan: hitler's script was the triumph of the aryan race, the triumph of nazi germany.