tv Tavis Smiley WHUT July 10, 2012 8:00am-8:30am EDT
8:00 am
tavis: good evening from los angeles. over the weekend, six more servicemen were killed. another reminder of the war without end. first up tonight, a conversation about america's continued involvement in afghanistan. rajiv chandrasekaran's claim to new book is called "little america." also, elijah wood is here. he currently stars on "wilfred," currently on its second season. that is coming up, right now. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it is the cornerstone we all know. it is not just a street. it is a place where walmart stands to get there with your community. make every day better. >> and by contributions to your
8:01 am
pbs station by viewers like you. thank you. ♪ tavis: rajiv chandrasekaran, an associate editor at the washington post, whose previous book was "imperial life in the emerald city." his latest is called "little america: the war within the war for afghanistan." he joins us now from san francisco. i started the program by referencing those americans who were killed this past weekend. i suggested this may be the war with no end. is that putting too much on it? >> this war has been going on for a long time, more than a decade. it is the longest war our
8:02 am
country has fought. it is longer than the revolutionary war. even though our government as well as our allies have pledged to end our combat mission in 2014, there will still continue to be a substantial number of u.s. forces in afghanistan beyond that. special forces troops to conduct counter-terrorism raids. trainers for the afghan military. well, certainly, the levels of casualties will drop, there will still be americans in harm's way for the foreseeable future. >> president obama has referred to this as the good war. is it the good war? if it is, have we fought it well? >> it started out as the good war. i argue that it was the good war that turned bad. not because the cause was
8:03 am
unjust. this began with the 9/11 attacks. there was a belief that we had to go in to topple the regime to go afterl qaeda leaders who had safe harbor. over the years, the mission has expanded. it has expanded into a grand nation-building effort. some of that is warranted. afghanistan is poor. it does not have a government. it needs international assistance. did it need that many troops? did it need billions of reconstruction dollars? the way we went about and fought this war, particularly in recent years, we did too much. we committed too many trips. we committed too much money. we have not achieved the sort of sustainable results, achieved
8:04 am
the peace be with like to see. tavis: it is of is the war lasted for the entire bush administration. -- it is obvious the war lasted for the entire sh administration. it might last for the entire obama administration. you argue that bush and starred afghanistan. obama put too much money in. is that an oversimplification? >> you are absolutely right. we went from a country that was parched to one that has been flooded. there is a happy medium. the answer, as some of my characters are given, is not to go home. it is a goal long strategy. it was time to do something modest and meaningful for a country that has needs. not to expect that we could change the place overnight with 100,000 troops and billions of
8:05 am
dollars. tavis: what is the best argument that can be made to the american people for why we have stayed so long? when you consider all the wars we have been engaged in. this is the longest ever. what justifies that? >> certainly, the 9/11 attacks are a big justification for why we have been in there as long as we have it is in our nature. we did not want to leave without a tail and between our legs. we want to achieve a decent outcome. i do not think it is going to be ywhere near peace in l.a. time. -- in our time. afghanistan is going to be chaotic. the hope is that with a degree of involvement. remember, our troops are starting to come home, that we will at least achieved a strong enough government that the
8:06 am
taliban that is not able to roll back into kabul and take it over with the same ease they did in the 1990's. that is a pretty and satisfactory outcome. -- unsatisfactory outcome. it will not look like a peaceful nation. there has been a human cost to this. for what we have achieved, part of what i try to examine is whether what we tried to do in the last couple of years, all with the best of intentions, president obama wanted to turn around this war, to succeed where bush had been distracted, \. had bush committed the necessary forces, we would not have been in this position. it was too late. afghanistan defied a push to turn it around.
8:07 am
it was not going to bounce back. tavis: days ago the administration undergurged afghanistan. a love-it relationship, -- our love-hate relationship, they have been announced as a non- nato allied. have they earned that? >> they are a reluctant partner in the overall american war effort. it is played with corruption. it is laden with scoundrels and other unsavory figures. no, but, they have us over a barrel. we need them to continue the effort. if we were to pack up and go home, they would fall and what would replace them would be worse.
8:08 am
it is being forced to pick between a bunch of bad options. what the white house is trying to do is choose the least worst option even though it looks very unpalatable. they are a major non-nato ally. later, $16 billion is committed by the international community. they need that money. when we think back to the billions of dollars we have poured in, how much of that has not gone to the people. it has been siphoned off by corrupt leaders. put in to counsel and other countries. how much has gone to u.s. contractors doing work as opposed to meeting the dire needs of the population. tavis: you suggested we have put more money into afghanistan than they were able to absorb. why do we keep putting money in? >> that is a good question.
8:09 am
we are cutting back. there was a view that if you put more money into the place, you could get more results more quickly. i think that was a fallacy. there is a limit to what the country can absorb. beyond that, it runs off. it runs off as corruption or waste. it took too long to get that. you have a new team that thought it could do differently. it wound up being too generous. tavis: if mr. obama is limited to one term. if he is limited to one term, what is his legacy going to be? we know what the bush legacy is. we see the beginning been written. what is the obama: to be? >> i think -- what is the obama legacy going to be? >> i think is going to be complicated. obama probably understood
8:10 am
afghanistan well. he did not follow his instincts. he did not stand up to the military. had he listened to his advisers, his vice president, and chartered a different course, i think we could be in a different place today. this could be a subject of much discussion. did obama take a forceful enough line? he was not talking a lot about it on the stump, nor is mitt romney. we are in the middle of a presidential election season. nobody is talking about afghanistan. it's just how politically follette tile it is. nobody wants to -- it shows you how politically volatile subject is. tavis: the new text is called "little america: the war within the war for afghanistan." good to have you on, thank you. up next, elijah wood.
8:11 am
first, a quick word on the passing of ernest borgnine. he visited with us. he passed away on sunday at the age of 95. we are back in a moment. >> i am the most fortunate person in the world. not many people like me, my age, i doing this kind of stuff. everybody looks at me like you did, i cannot be 90. it is one of those crazy things. you have to prove to some directors and producers that you are able to do this. tavis: please welcome elijah wood. he is into its success on the
8:12 am
small screen this day on the critically acclaimed series "wilfred." it airs thursday night at 10:00. here is a sin. >>-- scene. >> yeah. i was wondering, you see in the like someone who knows where it could get something that would make me stronger. something you cannot find in the health store. >>f you are asking me what you think you are asking me, it is a legal. >> you and not on steroids? that is it natural package -- is your natural package? >> the "ted" thing is funny. we just finished our second season. it is similar. tavis: the rev. animals are working. for those who have not seen the
8:13 am
show, give me the story line. >> not the easiest thing to describe. it is about a guy who had reached an impasse in his life. he almost commit suicide. he fails. quite dark. in that moment, he meets his neighbor's dog. he sees a man in a dog suit. he quickly realizes that no one else can see that but him. level one else sees a dog. that sets forth the relationship between man and dog. tavis: this is a different kind of dog. >> he is different. he is sort of like my character's conscious. his aide, if you will. the side of his personality that has been lying dormant. he actually learn something every time. tavis: what does this series do
8:14 am
or say about the adage that dog is man's best friend? >> i think it adds enemy. friend slash enemy. it is in constantly in question, what his intentions are. tavis: how did this come to you? >> i was looking at television scrips a couple years ago. primarily because i love television, particularly cable television. it has proven it is an amazing place for great storytelling. and credible actors, writers, directors. i was curious about the medium. comedy is something i never really had experience doing. i read a few scripts. my manager sent me a script for "wilfred." it was unlike anything i've ever read.
8:15 am
i found it hilarious. it also has is a repro quality. it reminded me of "harvey." you can interpret what the relationship is. there is a layered aspect to the show that did not rely on comedy all the time. that is what i responded to. tavis: you are an actor. you are good enough to choose whatever roles you want. you had not, we had not known you as a comedic star. why roll t why take the risk? obviously, it is working. why roll the dice? >> i think new experiences are extremely important. it is important to challenge yourself. comfort is not a good thing. it is good to take yourself out of the comfort zone and to look for new challenges.
8:16 am
i love comedy. my job is more of a straight man. it is more of a reactionary role. jason has the more comedic role. at the end of the day, it was about responding to the material. it was something i fell in love with. i was willing to take the risk. i knew going into it that we would have the freedom to make the shobi wanted to make. the show that they cultivate -- the shows that the cult of it are known for having a lot of freedom. the show that was described to me, the places he wanted to go were so strange. i just want to be part of that. it sounded like something unique and different. tavis: how did you know the time was right for you to move in that direction? you were a big movie star for so
8:17 am
long. you are so young, i cannot say is a long period -- say so long. how did he know the time was right? >> i do not know. i did not think in timing. or if i think in terms of the ark of the committee. tavis: what looked in television? >> -- why not look in television? >> that is a good question. i think because i had become a fan of some of the shows. -- so many shows. hbo, for a long time. the idea of working on something that this audit was exciting. maybe because it is -- something episodic was excited. maybe because it is hard finding films that are interesting. there is a mix.
8:18 am
there are large films that steadiest tend to make. they make a few a year that are part based. -- art based. the rest are small independent films. it is hard to find great work. the idea of working on a network like hbo or amc was attractive. with that thought process, being interested in that storytelling, this show worked. tavis: let me ask you something that is unconventional, and orthodox. i am curious. we all know the good that comes out of being in a franchise like "lord of the rings." what is the downside? what is the challenge?
8:19 am
what is the flip side? >> i think sometimes that material tends to dominate people's purview. their impression of you is dominated by that one thing. in theory. it makes it more challenging to move outside of the shadow of that and prove you are capable of doing multiple different kind of things. i would say that is the biggest challenge. for me, i always believed that it was important to do -- that each project be very different from the last. to try to have as divers a career as possible. knowing that the diversity would help continue long devotee. i think i felt that more intensely. because it was so massive, it felt even more important to work on things the would different.
8:20 am
tavis: you oregon and another product. -- you are working on another project. >> they are doing the "hobbit." technically the character i played was not alive. a lot of people were asking how i was involved. i have a tiny cameo at the very beginning. it is more of a flash forward. it was incredible. it was a wonderful opportunity to revisit the family. so many of the crew members are still working on "the hobbit." it felt like time travel. the last time i was there i turned 18. i was 30 the last time i was there. it is remarkable. >> i was going to ask you
8:21 am
whether or not try to have this korea, -- tavis: i was going to ask you whether or not trying to have this career, has it been more difficult or challenging, trying to make this happen as you age? clearly, a lot of people stuck in the business young. -- start in the business young. for a few years to disappear. some make it back. some never make it back. the point is, talk to me about your tierney of aging -- journey of aging in this industry? >> i have been extremely lucky to be 31 and still working. it is extraordinary. it is difficult. the notion of a transition is something i was being asked about it even when i was 19 and
8:22 am
20. at that time, i was nearly an adult. there has never been a strategy to it. i can only reference and look back at the work i have done, the movies i have been lucky enough to be a part of. because there were no roles, there is a theory that i have that when i was younger, as a child, i was never a part of anything that was massively famous. i kind of gradually grew in terms of recognize ability. i think that was a saving grace period had been a part of something at nine or 10 that it immediately made me a household name, that may have ended my ability to continue working. i think that helped. i have always had a sense of granted this. -- gorundedness. my mother sort of beat in to me
8:23 am
the notion of humility. the focus has been on the right things, the work. how i did not know if there is a magical equation. i have been very lucky. i have had opportunities that have led to other opportunities. i did not know if there is any -- there was never a scheme. there was never a plan. there is not one them. when i approach a job, approach it on such a gut level. i am not always thinking about what it will mean for the next thing. i am just responding to it in the moment. i only have what is at my disposal at a given time. as an actor, it is a relatively passive job unless you are degenerating in your own content. you are at the mercy of what is available. ultimately, what people want to hire you for. tavis: you are getting older.
8:24 am
you and that agent. -- you are not aging. i you happy with this? >> that is funny. i did not know. i am not know it -- annoyed. that is one aspect that has been interesting. when i was in my mid-20's, when i felt i was in my mid-20's and wanted to play more adult roles, there were people that still thought of me as a teenager. that has been a hindrance. it has also been a benefit. i think will continue to be a benefit. tavis: we should all be so lucky. [laughter] >> that is why i will never
8:25 am
complained. i have what i have. tavis: we should all be so lucky. >> i have a painting up in my attic that is aging. winkle. rip van dorian gray, he stays john forever, he has a painting in his attic. tavis: it is working out for you. the new series, in its second season, "wilfred," on fx. it is funny. it is good to have it back. that is our show for tonight. >> for more information on today's show, visit pbs.org. tavis: 2 immunex time for a conversation with glenn fry on
8:26 am
his solo project. that is next time. >> every community has a martin luther king boulevard. it is the cornerstone we all know. it is not just a street but a place where walmart comes together with the community. make every day better. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.
140 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
WHUT (Howard University Television) Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on