ambassador, as an afghan, how do you respond to his there?ts that afghan people don't care. guest: hurt. deeply hurt by that comment. sorry to say, this is not a human way of thinking about people. have families everyday, we mourn the death of our people killed across the country. we're fight thanksgiving war to not only the afghans have stability, but stability across the world. the afghan people's dream is no american than an dream. it is peace and stability, we just want to live at peace. visited dent, when he the united states in 2015, -- has said that escaped us and that is what we be able to live an ordinary life, we want to be walk on the streets without being targeted by terrorists. worship inbe able to peace. we want to be able to attend schools and institutions and life we do. to think of the afghan people peaceful ther than people who have been dealing imposed nternational war, we were invaded first in we lived a peaceful life before that and the pictures s full of before the war. we defended against an invader wanted to change our way of ife, who wanted to take o

the afghan economy. part of what they struggle under as they do not have control over economy.tion of their so, as the forces are either to hold and stabilize areas so they are not losing ground, they are still losing ground today as you know. this will take a while. hold, itabilize and will be held by afghan security forces while allowing the afghan community to continue what it has already been doing under our assistance for many years and not roll back any of those gains that have been made. i do not think that is the aspiration of the american government or the -- afghan government or afghan people, either. we will not be putting so much of the taxpayer dollar on the ground, building schools, building infrastructure. we think there are plenty of others that we are going to call upon for assistance as well. are there to facilitate and ensure there is a pathway for reconciliation and peace talks. is this person begins to take hold, we believe and we already know there are certain elements of the modern

as ground is gained it will be held by afghan security forces while allowing the afghan government toontinue what it has been successfully doing under our assistance for many years. and not roll back any of those gains. i do not think that is the aspiration of the afghan government or people either. we will continue to help them institutionally. we may take different approaches and not putting so much u.s. taxpayer dollars on the ground building schools and infrastructures. we think there are plenty of others that we will call upon for assistance as well. we are there to facilitate and ensure that there is a pathway for reconciliation and peace talks. as the pressure begins to take hold. we believe we already know there are certain moderate elements of the taliban and who we think -- we think will be ready and develop a way forward. how long that will take, will be based on conditions on the ground. >> thank you very mr. secretary, a question, on the military side, want the new rules of engagement mean in the short term, our forces will be potentially doing night raids against the tal

as an afghan and for. i was very hopeful and hopeful and look forward to the much needed cooperation between. russia and the united states and here it is the united states that has walked out of it for some unknown reasons they have to come back and explain the situation in afghanistan tony relist what when truong i don't want to get us on to become an area of competition and rivalry well i want afghanistan to become a place of cooperation i appreciate very much your aspirations but you know again better than i do that competition is a ruling the day in international side shouldn't be. why would the afghanistan of all the other war torn countries be an exception it should be an exception because if they don't call parades afghans will rise. against those who have the key to the students in afghanistan today it is the united states that just bombed us with the biggest of the bomb that they had short of a nuclear bomb a country that they call allies and would one expect me to give quite well at least they wo

you are part of the afghan military. there was no central military or government in afghanistan before. tribes.re always i'm curious because your men actually were arrested for open fire in that square in iraq when civilians were killed. how did you get access to all of our treasury money to build your own mercenary army in afghanistan? would consider hiring mercenaries on behalf of the american government. we will never be done with terrorists as long as you continue to occupy afghanistan. laternbelievable 16 years that we are pouring all this money and dick cheney has lied through his teeth. you are a good friend of his. how did you get all of our money from the treasury? guest: let me clarify a couple things. we are not doing that work now. the u.s. military has been doing it for 16 years and it's costing taxpayers more than $50 billion a year. there is an afghan government now, one that we recognize, largely been elected, and is representative and we can either choose to pull out completely, and i believe the afghan

host: when you talk to the afghan people, what do they tell you? guest: they are most concerned about being abandoned as they know what the consequences would be if the u.s. pulled out. the afghan government had a bad week last week and lost an entire company to a taliban ground attack. barely 20 guys escaped. where is the air support? where is the reaction forces and help from the united states or other afghan forces? as they lay out this plan with embedded structure of the battalion level with air support and medical support, those problems go away. they realize that and appreciate that. host: if your company, a hypothetical, got involved and your sister is betsy devos, any conflict of interest with your sister in the cabinet? guest: not at all, the educational department is separate. host: fairfax, virginia, democrat line. caller: are you considered -- considering asked her your sister's husband about him funding the private military. to what address should i send my tax money because he wants to privatize everything in the government? everybody

is in one base and the afghan are in the other base. i am talking about putting contract trainers on a long-term basis that live, train, and patrol with the afghan unit and provide a structural support, skeletal system that provides leadership, intelligence, communications, logistics expertise, each of the afghan battalions from the bottom up to depend on. i knowledge from history, the flying tigers, when the united states was not in world war ii and we needed to help china defend itself from japanese aggression because they were bombing their cities. you had americans as contractors going to fight and they became part of the chinese air force in 1940. first foreign-policy crisis america first with the barbary ,irates led by william eaton eight marines and 90 contracted professionals. frenchman.lian, they liberated the 340 american sailors held hostage by the bay of tripoli in 1805. plenty of examples throughout history and a lot still classified because more of this has happened that people want to imagine. ,ost: our guest is erik prin

with the afghan government and fellow afghans one aspect second aspect of it is to bring an environment of cooperation through the reach of the organization especially the shanghai cooperation organization and in this case also in our view which is very important to us to take matters into our own hands if the west led by the united states is not interested in extremism we can't sit by and watch and suffer. we have the means in this region and fortunately these means were not used in the past neither by russia nor by china nor by india they could do for the united states do you think either is means you mean i mean the the financial means i mean the intelligence means i mean is the political influence means i mean is the means of a giraffe a cold contiguity classic geopolitics down here for a dad they say is going to make the situation in your country even worse no the classic geopolitical means have to be used not for rivalry but for. equal his of the push that is what russia should be doing that's what i advised russia to do in that's what they're doing right now in other words if one

there is an afghan government now. there is one that we recognize, it has largely been elected, and it is representative. and we can either choose to pull out completely, and i believe the afghan government would be defeated, and it would collapse, and it would be another completely failed state harboring a lot of terrorists, or we can keep doing what we are doing. i don't think we should do that either. this is an off-road to end the road and to bring the troops home and be done. steve scully: chris in wisconsin, the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. well i am just kind of conflicting this story about $1 trillion. from the facts that i've gained, it's $6 trillion. that is -- i have three points, that is the first point. the other one is korea. dnk. that's the scary situation. i think that we need to -- i don't know exactly what to say about that other than we can't let them loose. the third point is iran, syria, lebanon, israel, all those factors are -- it's trouble. steve scully: thank you, chris.

sexual abuse of children by afghan security forces. well the u.s. government is accused of turning a blind eye to one afghan custom in particular known as. this involves the sexual abuse of young adolescent boys and has been illegal in afghanistan since the start of this year. rule. if you are going to say. that they need to. leave. with me but if you go to see six those in the. us so i was there. this is something that's there. not the first time such allegations of afghan soldiers were raping young boys have surfaced back in two thousand and fourteen human rights groups claimed abusers were often paying bribes to hide their crimes and in two thousand and fifteen reports surfaced that american military personnel were being told to look the other way in order to maintain good relations with afghan units allegations of child sexual abuse by afghan military or police personnel would be a matter of domestic afghan criminal law there would be no express requirements that u.s. military personnel in afghanistan report it one possible explana

that's -- i don't think that's the aspiration of the afghan government or the afghan people either.o, what we're going to continue to help them institutionally, we may be taking different approaches and not putting so much of the u.s. taxpayer dollar on the ground, building schools and building infrastructures. we think there are plenty of others that we're going call upon for assistance as well. rather, we're there to facilitate and ensure that there is a pathway for reconciliation and peace talks as this pressure begins to take hold and we do -- we believe, we already know, there are certain moderate elements of the taliban who we think are going to be ready and want to help develop a way forward. how long that will take will be, again, based on conditions on the ground. >> mr. secretary, a question that embraces both the military side and the diplomatic side. on the military side won't the new rules of engagement mean our forces will be more at risk because they will potentially be doing night raids against the taliban again, not just training but actually supporting in a more ac

the afghan people i am sure are. to you, ron. do you think this will be a ha rd ron. do you think this will be a hard sell? i think it is important that the president gave the american people and our allies around the world the impression that we will win this war, but that we will not set artificial deadlines or targets. thank you all very much forjoining me to discuss the president's speech. as you can find more on the new strategy in afghanistan at our website, along with all the day's news. i'mjenna website, along with all the day's news. i'm jenna ryan. website, along with all the day's news. i'mjenna ryan. thank you website, along with all the day's news. i'm jenna ryan. thank you for watching. —— obama. ——jane —— jane o'brian. the cloud is sitting quite low in the atmosphere. anything positive to be set? the temperatures will be about 14—17. that is a mild start to the day. but a slow start for many. if you're on the move is first thing, as i say, some of this is sitting low in the atmosphere. it is going to t

i don't think that's the aspiration of the afghan government or afghan people.y be taking different approaches and not putting so much of the u.s. taxpayer dollar on the ground, building schools and building infrastructures. we think there are plenty of others that we are going to call upon for assistance as well. rather, we're there to facilitate and ensure that there is a path way for reconciliation and peace talks as this pressure begins to take hold. and we believe we already know there are certain moderate elements of the taliban who we think are going to be ready and want to help develop a way forward. how long that will take will be, again, based on conditions on the ground. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, a question that embraces both the military side and the diplomatic side. on the military side, won't the new rules of engagement mean that in the short term, at least, our forces will be more at risk because they will be potentially doing night raids against the taliban again, not just training, but actually supporting in a more active role becau

i don't think that is the aspiration of the afghan government or the afghan people. we help them institutionally, we may be taking different approaches not putting so much of the u.s. taxpayer dollar on the ground, building schools and infrastructure. we think there are plenty of others that we'll call upon for assistance as well, rather we're there to facilitate and insure that there is a pathway for reconciliation and peace talks as this pressure begins to take hold. we do, we believe we already know there are certain moderate elements of the taliban who we think are going to be ready and ant to help develop a way forward. how long that will take will be again based on conditions on the ground. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much, mr. secretary, a question that embraces both the military side and the diplomatic side. on the military side, won't the new rules of engagement mean in the short term at least our forces will be more at risk because they will be potentially doing night raids against the taliban again, not just training but actually supporting in a more

fighting continuing it's the afghans. civilians that are paying the biggest price and what we now know is that in the months that trump has been in power the afghan civilian casualties are sixty seven percent higher than they were a year ago so we know that trump is already responsible for more dead and injured afghan civilians than any president before him i want to get your reaction to what house speaker paul ryan said during a town hall last night after trump speech during which he praised the president's remarks they have the time we have the watches meaning they will wait us out and if they believe that we have some end date some timetable then they will wait us out they have the time and we have the watches phillis that because the u.s. is trying to fight an indigenous population. absolutely and what this says is the whole ryan is supporting permanent war and permanent occupation there's no question that the u.s. military is more powerful than the taliban if the u.s. is prepared to permanently occupy afghanistan wit

along with conner insurgency the whole idea is to give the whole idea is to give the the afghan military the proper training so they ultimately can go it alone now talking about hunting the terrorists i'd like to bring in now former cia agent jack rice jack you heard what the president had to say he said that that the u.s. is no longer going to take part in nation building in afghanistan that he said verbatim we are now there to kill terrorists how are we going to do that without involving pakistan and now he has also brought in india. well you know what that's all well and good to talk tough but here's the problem if you have a country and a government specifically with the afghan government that is frequently incompetent and corrupt if what you say is we're going to ignore them we're just simply going to kill people the problem that you have with that is you're still going to see a a government which is incapable of actually doing what it was that they're supposed to do and so as a result of that that will exacerbate the situation create more people who are willing to fight against us

and the pentagon's urge to declassify a report detailing allegations of child sex abuse by the afghan security forces as it funds. thank you for watching our international coming to you live from moscow i'm kate partridge. the u.s. has carried out another successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile in the pacific it's the second in less than a week and comes amid rising tensions with north korea bumps while the secretary of state says washington wants dialogue there are signs a military option could be in the whole thing we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the thirty eighth parallel we're trying to convey to the north koreans we are not your enemy we're not your threat every military expert says there is no good military option there are wrong there is an option to destroy north korea's program and north korea itself he's not going to well president trump the ability of this madman to have a missile that hit america if there's going to be a war to stop and it will be over there if thousands die they're going to die over there and they're not going to di

that's been part of the afghan government structures. it's been part of what the afghan people themselves expect if you go back to many years ago, that was the nature of afghanistan, 30, 40, 50 years ago, i think it is part of their culture already. we want to support that, in terms of the clear hold. that is still the approach, areas will be cleared and afghan security forces can hold those areas. part of what afghanistan struggles under, they do not have control over a portion of their economy so as the forces are able to hold areas and stabilize them they're still losing ground today, as you well know. this is going to take a little while. it's to stabilize and hopefully begin to regain control while allowing the afghan government to continue what it has been doing under our assistance now for many years and not roll back any of the gains that have been made. what we're going to continue to help them institution ali, we may be taking different approaches and not putting so much of the u.s. taxpayer dollar on the ground building school

participate in the future of afghanistan that is acceptable to the afghan people. you know, the afghan people remember, they remember 1996 to 2001 pretty vividly and what it was like to live under that brutal regime. the taliban, we work hard to disconnect the dots here especially their relationship with other terrorist organizations. we also recognize none of these groups were monolific either. if there are those who are ready to join a political process like they did over the past year then i don't think the afghan government would object to that in anyw way. if you're enemies are fighting aggressively against you it is not a good option to say you're not going to fight them anymore and then just hope for an outcome that secures the interest of the american people. >> reporter: [ inaudible question ] >> could you describe winning in afghanistan? >> winning in afghanistan is aimed at allowing afghanistan to be afghanistan, not to create a state in u.s. image. winning in afghanistan means there are not terrorist groups who are able to control key parts and populati

if we want the afghan focus? it has become a lot cheaper just to leave much of the equipment behind rather than to pay the billions of dollars to bring it home. when we got involved in afghanistan and ramp up in afghanistan many national guard units went and took their equipment with them. they love that equipment behind. some of it was worn down or damaged. the worry for the future is to have the money to replace that equipment in the hands of the national guard? we looked at was going on in texas. the national guard is a lot of things at home, not just a broad. the issue is are they going to be fully equipped to do this in the future? guest: daisy is, from washington, d.c. free democrats. caller: good morning. you know what? the government is all messed up. they need to clean this up and stop blaming all these people. they need to either go to jail, get trump out. they need to go do something. they are the ones who messed up. host: with good as steve coming from chatsworth, illinois on the line for independents

a suicide bombers targeted a nato convoy in the afghan city of kandahar the night. lead mission in the country confirmed the attack and that it caused casualties a car packed with explosives was driven into the convoy outside kandahar airport which is home to a major military base for international troops no further details about the casualties have been released. with the recent reports the u.s. government's afghanistan watchdog has warned that the security situation is deteriorating fast with armed clashes between afghan forces and taliban militants it also points out a recent rise in high profile attacks the documents cites figures released by the us secretary general in june this year. will the same watchdogs urge the pentagon and sue declassify a report detailing allegations of child sex abuse by afghan forces but currently whatever's concealed in the potentially sensational report remains a secret as jacqueline booga reports. the report was concerned that they gave of sexual abuse of children by members of the afghan security forces because it's classified muc

organise and help the afghan army fight levels. organise and help the afghan armyfight in levels.ability to call in support it is needed to ensure victory as opposed to either stalemate or defeat. with respect to the comment about russia, to the extent russia is a bearing arms to the taliban, that is a violation of international norms, it is a violation of un security council norms. we would certainly object to that and call russia‘s attention to that. if anyone is going to supply arms, it has to be through the afg ha n arms, it has to be through the afghan government. in terms of our third print on the ground, we‘re very confident, explains people there now. —— experience people there now. —— experience people there now. —— experience people there now. even in the transitional in afghanistan, we have nominated a very extrinsic diplomat, bin running the embassy, he has equipped to step into this situation as well and we‘re looking at a couple different people for the special representative to afghanistan and pakistan position. it is open currently, it has been filled with a very e

watchdog has warned that the security situation is deteriorating fast with armed clashes between afghan forces and taliban militants it also points out a recent rise in high profile attacks of the document cites figures released by the us secretary general in june of this year. well as a watchdogs urged the pentagon to detox to fire reports detailing allegations of child sex abuse by afghan forces but currently whatever's concealed in the potentially sensational report remains a secret as jacqueline to go explains the report was concerned that they gave of sexual abuse of children by members of the afghan security forces because it's classified much of the information on which the sego report is based the report is classified as requested that the declassify the reports so dark secrets will remain secret for now but it's not the first time such allegations of afghan soldiers were raping young boys have surfaced. yeah. they don't. believe. it was this is. a show that was there. and that's there there is unfortunately little proof for these crimes available back in two thousand and fourte

america will continue its support for the afghan government and the afghan military as they confront taliban in the field. ultimately it is up to the people of afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. we are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. we are not nation-building again. we are killing terrorists. the next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with pakistan. we can no longer be silent about pakistan's safe havens for terrorists organizations, the taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in afghanistan. it has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. in the past, pakistan has been a valued partner. our militaries have worked together against common enemies. the pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. we recognize those contributions and those sacrifices, but

allies the war if you like by turning it over to afghan for afghan forces this strategy is not succeeding the taliban have increased the amount of territory they control they've grown stronger they've grown more of the ships and it would seem to me that yes there are some hopes that no afghan special forces might be of some use in this battle but if you're going to send in four thousand i'm extra american troops on to grow do seem to indicate that really the americans are going to have to step up and join the fight direct way. meanwhile new witness accounts of refugees from iraq are the self-proclaimed capital of islamic state in syria a painting a work in picture the u.s. leads the advance those who are most to flee from the city have been describing what it was like. a little bit of civilian people who die either from clashes of from the aircraft we people died as a result and yes many people died would you think though many people died the aircraft targeted the check point is i was living it and then i was able to pass. earlier on we spoke to young egland is the secretary general of th

america will continue its support for the afghan government and the afghan military as they confront taliban in the field. ultimately, it is up to the people of afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society and ever lasting peace. we're a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. we are not nation building again. we are killing terrorists. the next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with pakistan. we cannot longer be silent about pakistan's safe haven for terrorist organizations, the taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in afghanistan and has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. in the past pakistan has been a valued partner. our militaries have worked together against common enemies. the pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. we recognize those contributions and those sacrifices. but pakistan has also

we're going to get the afghans out front. the united states will continue to lead in terms of command and control at the highest levels with intelligence, with medical support, with logistics support. there will be some contractors. there always will be some contractors in neat ter. but what i'm -- i guess what i'm saying, jim, is it's not an ideal solution because you don't -- if you cannot advance the policies of what the afghan government is trying to do, and also let's be frank, the taliban owns more of afghanistan than it did before 9/11 so there are elements of work that need to be done. >> not to be skeptical -- >> be skeptical. >> -- i know there are a lot of smart people working on this with a lot of battlefield experience. i've covered iraq and afghanistan. i've been there a dozen times in each place. i've heard this argument, local forces are standing up, they're better now, we need fewer of us, its, et cetera, but this is a plan that you've heard proffered to president bush, to president obama -- >> sure. >> -- an

we are going to continue to fight for the afghan government and security forces. the taliban needs to engage with afghan government and a process of reconciliation and developing a way to govern the country in the future. >> chris: when you say they're gonna be there until they get that message is an open-ended commitment? racing whatever the president's view is, whatever it takes? >> the president was clear that he's not committing to any deadlines. in his speech if you recall he set our patience is not unlimited. our time is not unlimited. so. >> chris: he's talking about that in terms of the afghan government. >> correct. he's not going to set arbitrary guidelines. and deadlines. >> chris: there's also the question of how this administration defines victory in afghanistan. you and different terms. here you both are. >> attacking our enemies, obliterating isis, crushing al qaeda, preventing the taliban from taking over afghanistan and stopping master attacks against america before it emerges. >> this entire effort is intended to put pressure on the taliban to ha

government and the afghan military as they confront the taliban. in the field ultimately it is up to the people of afghanistan to take ownership of their future to govern their society and to achieve and ever lasting peace we're a partner and a friend but we will not dictate to the afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society we are not nation building again we are killing terrorists the next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with pakistan we can no longer be silent about pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations the taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond pakistan has much to game from partnering with our effort in afghanistan it has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists in the past pakistan has been a valued partner our militaries have worked together against common enemies the pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism we recognize those contributions and those sacrifices but pakistan has also sheltere

our troops are being killed by the afghans. we trained and we waste billions."tupid leaders to sign a deal that keeps us in afghanistan through 2024. "this has been his mantra. is it tough? >> it's one of the reasons why he won because i think after 16 years, when he announced he was running, america had begun to think we had lost the war. it's unfortunate and it's awful but it was the soviet union's graveyard and people were concerned it was becoming slowly america's graveyard. we lost an enormous amount of great men and women in that battle. we are still there. we still don't seem to want to defeat the islamist ideology. there was a great piece out today about what we are not willing to do. mcmaster is careful. he doesn't want to call it islamic, islamist terrorism. i understand that that the failure to recognize what we are up against, an ideology that does not care about killing women, children, brutalizing people, torturing them. as long as pakistan continues to help the taliban, and al qaeda, i don't see what we are really going to get out of there. with 4

there's a recognition that our efforts to enable afghan forces -- americans don't realize the afghan army suffered 6,700 soldiers killed in action? who is doing the bulk of the fight? the afghans are. the question the president has asked us is what more can we do to enable them. he doesn't want to take the war over. the afghans are fighting a war for their country. what more can we and others do -- what burdens, responsibilities can the united states and allies and partners share such that the afghan government, the security forces can succeed against this enemy of all civilization. >> when we return i ask general mcmaster about russia, the president's understanding of russia, about the arrival of john kelly as white house chief of staff and about a famous book about how military men and officials owe the president candor and their best advice. a book h.r. mcmaster wrote. you got next? chase. helping you master what's now and what's next. for over 100 yearsaking like kraft has,al cheese you learn a lot about people's tastes. honey, what do you want for dinner tonight? oh whatever you

america will continue its support for the afghan government, and the afghan military as they confront the taliban in the field. it is up to the people of afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an ever lasting peace, we're a partner and a friend but we'll not dictate to the afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. we are not nation building again. we are killing terrorists. the next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with pakistan. we can no longer about pakistan safe haven, taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in afghanistan. it has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. in the past, pakistan has been a valued partner. our militaries have worked together against common enemies. the pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. we recognize n rec -- recognize, pakistan has lal sheltered same organization that try every day to kill our peopl

local troops if you means local afghan troops well the fact is that the afghan army is taking fantastic casualties something like thirty one men in the police and security forces in the army are dying every day that's an annual total of about eleven thousand now if you consider that in the fifteen years up till now rather the nato troops were there the u.s. troops with a huge presence there only lost three thousand five hundred men it means that in one year three times more than the us lost in the whole of the previous decade and a half will be lost and so the afghan troops are dying at a fantastic rate. it's really a tragedy that so many young afghan men are being killed for nothing what do you think jonathan is the likelihood that america's allies are going to back donald trump on whatever his solution is. well over there already are i mean there's something like eight thousand four hundred american troops in many of them special forces and there are just under seven thousand troops from various allied countries including later sort of i think there will continue to back trump they wa

>> military employees of the afghan government.imagine them as a skeletal structure to all of those afghan battalions so it works reliably. they need air power. the maintenance and training has been a failure. they need government support and mentor support and air power all attaching to the afghan government you guys like to throw the mercenary word around. >> what are they if they are being paid by the u.s. government and don't work for the pentagon. >> under the u.n. -- no, they don't need to. if we want to afghanize this -- >> are they americans? >> they could be americans, foreign nationals, nato allies, from the global community of professionals most of whom have served in that country already that have a lot of experience that want to go back. i've been in contact with, you know -- remember, in the months after 9/11, a hundred cia officers and a couple hundred forces guys backed by air power crashed the taliban. the more we've gone to a conventional war with a conventional army, we've gone backwards. every year since then. t