they do not want afghan taliban to be their war. they do not attack with very energetically, let's say, anything having to do with the afghan taliban. there are other terrorist groups and insurgent groups and smugglers who operate across the same border, the haqqani network, and they also are not necessarily at war with pakistan. they are at war with us, or so it seems. we have not declared war on anyone, actually. so there is a greater ambiguity there and that's a possibility that could lead eventually to a negotiated settlement. it's clear to me that, for instance, one of the big insurgent groups fighting americans in particular in the east that is getting old and tired and looking for a way to stop the fighting. but we have to be attentive to the signals and we have to encourage them. the second group, the haqqani group, is what karl has referred to, it is a police problem. this is a smuggling industry and we're interfering with their business. and that's why they fight us. and they have aligned themselves recently with al qaeda

taliban. i think really what has to happen is the afghan people, they are very good fighters. they defeated the soviets, when they have something good to fight for. their own government is corrupt. it is a criminal syndicate. we in some ways facilitated that. the afghan people are not going to undertake their own security to protect the government did not respect. i think really the tactical military problems, we have started to figure them out, but there is no permanent solution until there is a government in place that serves the people afghanistan. the work we need to do it is to twist president karzai's are so hard that he dismantles the corrupt government. tavis: your thoughts about the troop drawdown? >> there was a 30,000 troops surge. at had a tremendous effect against the taliban. it hit the taliban very hard. in an emmy like that, it is a good time to negotiate, because they are killed -- if you hurt an enemy like that, it is a good time to negotiate, because they are hurting. the truth afghan taliban, who have some voice in the country, now was the time to start neg

or in the afghan taliban as targets. those are to some extent they've always been been able to use.are we in a position to put enough pressure on them to actually have them change their hit list? who knows? it's possible, but it seems much more likely that we will see of you scapegoats and more tolerance of one man combat aerial vehicle strikes, at the same time probably a reduction in special forces presents in pakistan. and there will be more maneuvering, because as they can see, if we have the july announcement of u.s. haircuts, that we are going to be leaving in 2014, at least that's a major military presence. and at that point, they have every reason to negotiate between the karzai government, the taliban, and try to me like the situation to their advantage. so this was an important event or simple for us. it was an intense embarrassment for them, just as was explained. but will it change their behavior? i think we already have problems in persuading the congress to provide any more carrots, even less sustain the cares we're giving them. it's just not clear what our sticks or w

taliban has claimed responsibility. this brings fresh concerns about turning over security to the afghans. >> the taliban or their allies showing that they can strike at the heart of afghan power. the intercontinental hotel was packed with government officials for a conference on transition to afghan security control. the fighting continued throughout the night. in the end, a nato attack helicopter was needed to kill three of the suicide bombers as they fired down from the rooftop. the government still needs a lot of help. among the dead, waiters, musicians, a senior judge, and police. many internationals were trapped inside of the hotel. >> i don't think we really know what happened. >> there was huge blasts, some 546. -- some explosions. >> this is a part of the taliban activities at the moment against the position of the mountain that has been gathered by these forces to try to make highly publicized attacks on civilian targets as well as the military targets in afghanistan. we should not be fooled by that. i think the progress that we're making on the ground, particularly at home and -- at helmand. >> british troops

afghan forces. we have degraded the taliban and possibilities and a cheap cigar -- achieved security gains. the security gains are enabling keep political initiatives to make progress. we have begun the transition process that will ultimately put afghans in the lead for security nationwide by 2014. we're beginning to see reintegration and reconciliation processes gain traction. we are in discussions with the afghans about a strategic partnership that will signal our enduring commitment to the afghan people and to regional peace and stability. it together, these initiatives promise of future afghanistan that is stable, peaceful, and secure. i want and decided that this announcement in no way marks a change in american policy or strategy in afghanistan. it is wholly consistent with the goals of president obama and our allies, agreed to at lisbon last year. there we committed to the gradual transfer of security leadership to the afghans by the end of 2014 and to an enduring commitment to a security partnership with afghanistan to ensure that we never again repeat the mistakes of simply abandone

or, in the afghan taliban as targets. those are leaders that to some extent they've always been able to use. are we in a position to put enough pressure on them, to actually have them change the hit list? who knows? it's possible. but it seems much more likely that we will see a few scape gothse and maybe more tolerance of unmanned combat aerial vehicle strikes at the same time probably a reduction in special forces presence in pakistan. and there will be more maneuvering because, as they can see, if we have a july announcement of u.s. troop cuts, that that means we are going to be largely leaving in 2014 at least as a major military presence. and at that point, they have every reason to try to intervene in whatever negotiations take place between the karzai government, the taliban, and try to manipulate the situation to their advantage. so this was an important event or symbol for us. it was an intense embarrassment for them just as bruce has explained. but should it change their behavior? i think we already have problem

not the afghan taliban. not the have cony -- hakkani network. not the actions of mullah omar. the direct interests of pakistan. in the areas where al qaeda has been most active, there have been pakistani forces. this is something people like to ignore. but pakistan has troops and capability in the area. they have a lot of capabilities. they have casualties. unfortunately, in the way they have thought, they have also in many areas, pounded the alienation of people by displacement. that has not been true everywhere. there has been some corrective action. but in general, one of the great problems pakistan faces is even when the military acts the government cannot. the civil side remains in that, whether it is in a flood or dealing with displaced people in combat. public opinion -- you obviously cannot see the details here. but it is very mixed for operations in the fatah area that is different from the areas that are close to the immediate interest of pakistan. when it comes down to the attitudes in popular terms that they have for the united states, we are by far the most unpopu

taliban into these negotiations. he said they have to abide by the afghan constitution. a lot of spertexperts have pointed out the taliban will never abide by the afghan constitution calling for equal rights for women. we know where the taliban stands on the issue of women and a lot of critics already suggesting that these indirect talks if you will that u.s. has had with the taliban are going to be fruitless and the u.s. is engaging in some wishful thinking if they think they can turn the taliban around and bring them into serious discussions, negotiations, just one point. stand by, everyone. members of congress were divided before the president's speech tonight. we're going to get some reaction up on capitol hill to his troop withdrawal plan and highlight some of the areas to watch in afghanistan as this drawdown unfolds. warning? or when you're distracted? when you're falling asleep at the wheel? do you know how you'll react? lexus can now precisely test the most unpredictable variable in a car -- the driver. when you pursue perfection, you don't just engineer the wor

it was there that he grew very close to the afghan taliban and also to al qaeda itself. linked to a great many impressive strikes, both in the south asian region, indian, pakistan. he was said to have a hansds in the mumbai attack in 2008 and more recently he has been named as having the ambition and, perhaps, attempting to plan attacks mumbai style, commando style attacks in europe, as well. he's been particularly named in an ongoing u.s. court matter as a guiding hand in an effort to attack newspaper offices in denmark. the reason why he was of such interest to u.s. officials here is that he was a man with proven ability, proven motivation, they essentially believed he is simply one of the most dangerous guerrilla leaders in the world today and one who had increasing ambitions to strike abroad. for that reason they considered him to be dangerous and they wanted to get him as soon as possible. we understand that he was on a list of militants given to the pakistani government not long after the death of osama bin laden as their most wanted, someone that they wanted eithe

the taliban have disappeared from the town center. the afghan government, supported by american troops, have been able to open a school. the hope is now that the locals will choose to back the government over the taliban. >> i want to come back here in a few years on vacation, instead of wearing all this. >> narrator: but progress here appears limited. the government runs one school in this district; the taliban run more than 20. and security here has come at a cost to the hearts and minds campaign. when we go on patrol with the afghan army, we meet locals who object to the tactics of the kill/capture teams. >> narrator: night raids are the signature tactic of jsoc's kill/capture campaign. almost all jsoc operations take place under cover of darkness. the afghan government says they want these night raids to stop. >> night raids are against our culture. even if it doesn't cause any harm, that's unacceptable, because it's a disgrace to people's dignity in our culture. >> narrator: mohammed daudzai is chief of staff to the afghan president, hamid

the afghan president said there has been no physical meetings with the taliban, but he said contactswen the us, the afghan government and taliban have been established. people on the streets of kabul said they are ready for peace after nearly a decade of war. >> whoever tries for peace in afghanistan, we support them. either america or president karzai. we welcome peace talks and we urge them to end the bloodshed and killing of brothers. >> the white house would not confirm mr. karzai's remarks. the obama administration would only say "the white house continues to support the afghan- led reconciliation and reintegration process that would bring insurgents in from the cold." >>> president karzai's comment came as violence claimed the lives of at least eleven people, including two international troops. in one attack, three suicide bombers stormed a police compound in kabul. the dead included four afghan security members and five civilians. nato offers few details about the deaths of the international troops other than to say, "they happened in southern afghanistan in a separate insurgent

i am the afghan taliban. i'm not constrained in my thinking by the next election which is less than two years away or the next quarterly report. what may seem to those americans as a very long time, three years, to me in my planning, it's little more than a blink of an eye. in just three years, they're going to be out of there. for the next three years, i'm going to continue the fight as a diversion but what i'm really going to be doing is recruiting and reconstituting so that i'm going to be ready when they're gone. i know they're working very hard to improve the security forces and the police, they're trying to make the mayor of kabul look like the president of afghanistan. but these gains are all very fragile and reversible. and with the forces that i'm going to hold in reserve from this fight, they'll be easily reversed. when they're gone. do you think that we have the ability -- you know, what one sees depends upon where one sits. do you think that we have the ability to see the world through the prism o

they deny that, contest that the taliban have control over the areas and say the pictures we receive amount to some sort of propaganda. afghan officials accepting since late march of this year that taliban insurgency have had a pretty strong grip over this particular area, a place where they used to be nato outposts, they pulled away, afghan security forces rushed in to try to control. eventually, the insurgency seems to have gotten the upper hand. >> nick peyton walsh, thanks for that. we will be asking more questions as we progress. tonight we're told defense secretary robert gates among others, wanted the president to go with smaller troop draw down. reaction from the pentagon next. protect your family with the gift of financial security. backed by the highest possible ratings for financial strength. new york life. the company you keep. that can go the distance. that's why we gave the chevy equinox an epa estimated 32 miles per gallon highway. but do passengers appreciate all of the comfort features we put in the equinox? hey. want me to drive? we'll take that as a yes. the count on chevy event is going on strong with a f

i am the afghan taliban. i am not constrained in my thinking about the next election which is less than two years away and what may seem to those americans as a long time as three years but to me with my planning it is so little more than the blink of the night. in the three years, they will be out of their. for the next three years i will continue the fight as a diversion but i will really be recruiting and reconstituting so i will be ready they're working very hard to improve security forces and police and trying to make the mayor of kabul look like the president of afghanistan. but these are all very fragile and reversible. with the forces i will hold in reserve, it will be easily reversed when they are gone. do you think we have the ability? it depends on where one sits, do you think we have the ability to see the world of the prism of the taliban? >> we see that world a lot more clearly than we used to as i am sure you can appreciate. because of the fights and sacrifices. we also see the world through th

pakistanis don't like militant groups, not just al qaeda but the other ones like the pakistani or afghan taliban. second, contrary to conventional wisdom, pakistanis like military groups more than middle classes. the people who hate militants most are the urban poor, probably because more than any other group they're the ones impacted by terror attacks -- bombs in subways, cafes or whatever. it's an interesting conclusion. the people we've long considered the likeliest candidates for extremism are actually the ones most against it. the study points out that this goes against most of the existing policy literature on the subject. it cites both the u.s. state department and the uk's department for international development as saying poverty motivates people to extreme violence. now, giving aid to poor people is good in and of itself, but if we have been doing that to prevent them from becoming islamic fundamentalists, then this study suggests we've been aiming at the wrong target. perhaps our focus should be on the middle classes or on secular education. research shows that members of the ira in n

between potential reconcilable afghan taliban and the afghan government. >> would it be the state department? >> you may want to check with d.o.d. or state, but obviously we have a substantial civilian presence and i don't know who is involved in terms of this reconciliation process. yes, sir. >> is a.t.f. director resigning with (inaudible) president operations? >> i don't have anything new on you for the fast and furious since the last brief on thursday, and i don't have anything more on a.t.f., they may or justice on that. >> (inaudible). >> i don't have -- all i can tell you is that you should take those questions to the department of justice. i just don't have any guidance for you. >> christie. >> back on the troop decision, over the weekend secretary gates referred to the process, is it over in this sense the president's decision making process where he's not consulted anymore? >> i can tell you with absolute certainty, that it is not over. >> the president reopen the strategy? >> i know from being in a room where he was discussing it today. that he is still finalizing his decision. it

safeguards, that the after began government will respect for the religious freedoms for all afghans, if the taliban were to ever come back to power, it would have devastating consequence, all afghan nao*ez for every state >> why aren't we seeing that put into practice? >> well t afghan constitution, the way it was drafted has a conflict inside the very articles that make up the text, while it does have language that commits the afghan government to recognize the u.s. rights, it has provisions that say they can't go against [inaudible] and what is seria law, is it a more moderate progressive -- >> freedom of religion don't mix at all with seria law. >> we've seen examples where very regressive [inaudible] for christians and other minorities but also even for muslims, it prevents muslims to prevent their own faith and how to interpret the ten na*ns of their faith. >> what should they be doing. >> they need to put this on top of the agenda, we're looking to transition authority and responsibility to the afghan nao*ez, we need to make sure they understand the importance of religious freedom, the import

pakistanis about stepping up to the plate is we had 100,000 troops will putting the hurt on the taliban on the afghane. that was important leverage, and i just think it's a horrible message for our resolve about fixing the problem. >> the other number that's been thrown out, as far as taliban fighter in all of afghanistan, there may only be maybe 25,000 in all of afghanistan. i don't know if you know a more accurate number. some say it's only 5, 10, 15,000, i've heard as high as 25,000. 300,000 afghan troops trained. isn't it time for the afghan troops to deal with these 25,000 taliban fighters? and let the u.s. and nato pull out? >> well, we do want to pull out. yes, there will come a time when the military is ready. here is the interesting thing, wolf. the military said, don't do this right now. there were lots of folks say don't do this, commanders on the ground, reports that petraeus said this is not what i want to do, if you do it we'll have to go into risk assessment and m t mitigation of risks. here's the problem. tame they're talking about pulling out, they're also talking about negotiation w

countries reportedly harboring other afghan taliban members. are the mumbai attacks three years ago. recent testimony from one of the plotters. a pakistani american implicated the isi in that attack which was carried out by a terrorist group with close ties to, guess, who the pakistani intelligence service. more recently american officials have twice given islamabad intelligence about terrorist bomb factories in pakistan. twice the bad guys were apparently tipped off. the raids yielded empty factories and no bombmakers. back home american lawmakers are losing patience. >> how long do we support governments that lie to us? when do we say, enough is enough? secretary gates? i'll start with you. >> well, first of all i would say based on 27 years in the cia and 4 1/2 years in this job, most governments lie to each other. that's the way business gets done. >> do they also arrest the people that help us? >> sometimes. >> when they say they're allies? >> sometimes. >> not often. >> and sometimes they send people to spy on us. and our close allies. >>

afghan government. the need to reverse the momentum of the taliban is a belief that's supported by and shared by the afghan people and the afghan government and obviously stabilizing afghanistan and allowing them to build up their security forces is also a goal that we share. we obviously have disagreements and we discuss those with members of the afghan government, with president karzai. but our objectives are clear. this is not obviously, as you know, this is not the first time i had a question like that. even since i've basketball here. we're very clear -- been here. we're very clear about what we're doing and what we've been achieving. >> yesterday when we asked you about -- [inaudible] i'm wondering if you -- [inaudible] and the president -- [inaudible] >> the president's aware of it. obviously i had not had a discussion with him about it. i appreciate the question and, you know, i would just make a couple of points. one, as i said yesterday, the united states was not a party, with a not involved in the supreme court's wal-mart decision. but what the decision underscores in our mind is the importance

so so especially against women and more mysterious power people and it's not new news for afghan people taliban already this time yes they were in power in directly they have supported us godfather like us to go into specially this time we are supported taliban in directly by party start to pakistan by sea ice time and taliban all of a violent power member of the parliament. the member of the sound of the style of milan as a lot of money. foreign minister of the taliban has could live in the safest place of the couple. and you've spoken i said of the taliban in pakistan the embassy you know he also has a good life in the safest place of kabul in a by sometimes as a politician coming to the media this last guy. prolonged that these killers all duty they are in power so what you're saying is it's a choice between bad we're going with us nato forces here and worse being struck again with warlords and the taliban or is it all the same our history shows that we have powerful history we never accept occupation british in the past want to occupy afghanistan faced with resistance of our people rush as

the taliban as they are by this situation getting worse and millions of afghans by presidents often suffer thousands troops in afghanistan they suffer from injustice insecurity joblessness polity etc so they further from the situation from this occupation and now afghanistan is the second most country and of course. more than sixty two million dollars cad is a story she received from the so-called international community and that the name of the construction of afghanistan in schools all funds where you do is etc but most of these money went into the pocket of these warlords who are in power or even family of harvard guys they have self corruption to start from the palace house and to their small offices and a million south afghan now they live below the poverty line like two dollars a day while it's the second woman there by the increasing more and more and tens of thousands of innocent people has been killed most of them of women and children destined us only to picture i can show you that. these children dare not tell us that they are telling and did a name of taliban and now they're in

taliban. one, building up the afghan army. erations against taliban middle managers, three, something called afghan local police which is really a pashtun tribal militia in the heartland of the taliban which are coming and working against the taliban by u.s. special forces, and those activities can be easily sustained, they say, with the 68,000 soldiers, and, you know, i think there's reason to think that that's true because, after all, you know, if you go back to the -- the pre-obama era, were you looking at, you know, around 30,000 american soldiers on the ground, and some of these activities were already being conducted just with 30,000, so i think 68,000 certainly is enough to do those activities. it's not enough to control every part of afghanistan, but that isn't really the point. >> we talk a lot about the taliban, but what is this -- the strength and the presence today of al qaeda in afghanistan? i mean, is the group still a threat there? >> according to white house officials, you know, this -- as of yesterday, the numb

afghan government and security forces, america will join initiatives that reconcile the afghan people, including the taliban. our position on these talks is clear. they must be led by the afghan government and those who want to be apart of a peaceful afghanistan must break from al qaeda, abandon violence and abide by the afghan constitution. but in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made. the goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply. no safe haven from which al qaeda or its affiliates have launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. we won't try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. that is the responsibility of the afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. what we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the afghan people that endures. one that enshuures that we wille able to target terrorists and support a sovereign afghan government. of course, ou

very strong perception that pakistan plays a double game, that it's not willing to take on the afghan talibannd that it in fact keeps ties open with them; it's not willing to take them on, and people like the hogani group or the so-called credushi -- and they're not willing to take on the group in the heartland that are franchisees of al qaeda. so there's a tremendous mutual suspicion and now of course with the general having reduced the military presence of the u.s. in pakist, after the drone attack that killed 41 people in dartha hill and after the attack on atabad, that reduced the u.s. footprint in afghanistan tremendously and it's becoming a serious impediment in better relationships. >> so what can the united states do, for example? >> the united states can focus more on the development side of things, which historically it has not done. >> rose: gave the money to the military? >> yes. it was a pentagon-backed army relationships and thereere other interests also. the security decide delivered also to be honest. during the 60s in cubanism and the 1980ese. counterterrorism is primarily a

tribal territory of north wuzeerstone and from there he developed close relationship with the afghan taliban and al qaeda. he has risen through the ranks of al qaeda quite dramatically in that time. rising to that position, as you say. essentially the operational chief. the man whose job it was to implement al qaeda strategy. that is to decide on targets to dedicate resources and, ultimately, carry out these operations and take lives. he has been essentially quite successful at doing it to the point where he has been talked about since the death of osama bin laden as a possible replacement as the leader of the whole global al qaeda network, t.j. >> phil, what dowe know about these strikes, these drone strikes. we know they do take place, oft oftentimes, u.s. officials are very quiet about them, but pakistani officials have been quiet about them, critical of them. as far as we can tell, have these continued? >> indeed, they have. indeed, they are a very controversial subject here in pakistan where pakistnis view them as an ongoing breach of their sovereignty. they have the same complaint of t

afghans. the taliban, the afghan government, drug barons or the warlords cannot attend. the likes of mr. karzai, mullah omar may join the jirga, but only as ordinary afghan citizens. and we understand that will be very difficult to actually make happen, but we feel it's important to state that that is actually what is required. to accomplish this, there is an imperative that the issue of islam be removed off center stage. where the current acrimony has been and replaced by enduring beliefs that link humanity together in a common struggle for a better life for all. parallels have been drawn by numerous experts between the complexity of afghanistan's sectarian tribal dynamic and the ongoing conflict in northern ireland. various tactics employed by peace keepers in northern ireland have been tried in afghanistan, but the two countries' circumstances are not dissimilar and for very good reasons. aside from sharing a long colonial heritage with britain, ireland and afghanistan share an ancient legacy of tribal law and secular codes of moral conduct that long precede the christian and islamic

i think the afghan taliban revealed the relationship between al qaeda. i suspect that in that mountain of data they are going through, they're going to find a lot more communications between mr. bin laden and taliban commanders and people would want to find. >> you on that just a vision list as well? >> yes. i get a lot of weird e-mails. >> i am from the university of richmond. i share your frustration. you have used words -- i wonder if we can really afford to divorce pakistan. bruce mentioned some of the importance of pakistan, and i would just add a few more. some of this have to do with negative enforcement. if we could drive pakistan into china's orbit, they can continue, you know, or liberating the network, come to my. they can provide sanctuary to al qaeda and so on. so i wonder if marriage of convenience is a possibility? >> i don't think either telling or i are advocating divorce. we are not here in the business of saying let's break with pakistan and enter a hostile relationship. what we're trying to do is be realistic, that engagement prospect

afghan u.s. and nato forces. the members share some of this information with the taliban.e so they provided training and intelligence, they provided strategic and operational at guice through the taliban nowadays, and the ultimate manifestation of that came with a july 7, 2008 bombing of the indian embassy in kabul where the u.s. intelligence assessment concluded that isi agents who were involved in planning the attack which killed 54 people including the attache and that what president karzai to complain formally. the big issue is is this a rogue operation and that's hard to say. some observers argue that these lower ranking officers wouldn't do what they do if they didn't have the approval of their superiors. and it's kind of hard to imagine the scope of the assistance to the taliban is the work of the rogue agents that's not approved at the highest levels of their organization. if the other issue that is debatable was what degree does the isi answer to the army? people argue on different sides. some former army officers described isi as a long to itself that doesn't tak

hours before a conference was slated to get under way, when handing over security to the afghans, the taliban made its move on the conference hotel. the message? it's still a force to be reckoned with. flames poured out of the intercontinental hotel in kabul overnight following the taliban's brazen attack. late tuesday a team of suicide bombers and gunmen stormed the heavily guarded building, firing at civilians and setting off a tense four-hour standoff with security forces. at least ten civilians died in the assault. some militants were also killed after nato helicopters swooped in and pounded the rooftop with rockets. the attack came just hours before an important meeting on the handover of security from nato to afghans was said to take place. just last week president obama announced his plans to withdraw u.s. troops from afghanistan, but this latest bloody incident is raising concerns again that afghan security forces may not be ready. >> it just shows the lack of police physical presence, police physical capability, and we're a long ways away, if this is where we're at. >> reporter: atta

sister especially against women and more mysterious power people and it's not new news for afghan people taliban already this time yes they were in power in directly they had godfather like us go maintenance especially this time we are supposed to tell upon him directly by pakistan through pakistan i sighed and tell about all the divide in part where members of the parliament colorful a lot of celebrity members of the salafist are liberal arts a lot of money but our foreign minister of the taliban has lived in the safest place of the couple. you've. got office taliban in pakistan the investor who he also has a good life in the safest place of kabul in the by sometimes as a politician coming to the media business can pull along that these killers already they are in power so what you're saying is it's a choice between bad we're going with us nato forces here and worse. again with warlords and. all the same our history shows that we have cultural history we never accept occupation british in the past won't talk apply afghanistan faced with resistance and for people rush as a superpower wanted to o

afghan government and security forces, america will join initiatives that reconcile the afghan people, including the taliban. our position on these talks is clear-- they must be led by the afghan government and those who want to be a part of a peaceful afghanistan must break from al qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the afghan constitution. but in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made. the goal that we seek is achievable and can be expresseddicism he. no safe haven from which al qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homed land or our allies. we won't try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. that is the responsibility of the afghan government which must step up its ability to protect its people and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. what we can do and will do is build a partnership with the afghan people that endures, one that ensures we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign afghan government. o

and afghan governments are exploring new negotiations with the taliban. margaret warner sat down with three afghan women who have a significant amount at stake in the outcome. >> we don't see the real inclusion. we don't see the real sort of participation. >> warner: these women are influential figures in afghanistan. in politics, business and nongovernmental organizations. that's a far cry from the subordinate role women held in taliban era afghanistan. barred from schools and most jobs, and brutallized for social infractions. they were in washington last week meeting with senior members of the administration and congress. their message, women's voices must be heard as the u.s. and afghan governments chart the course ahead. their visit came at a crucial time. the summer fighting season against the taliban has reached a fever pitch. yet the administration and president hamid karzai government are stepping up efforts to talk to the taliban, including figures close to mullah omar seeking a negotiated end to the ten-year-old war. what's more, president obama

shirt while insisting specially against women and more power people and it's not new news for afghan people taliban already this tell us they will empower him directly he has to prove just like us to maintain specially this time we are supposed to tell upon him directly by party sorry through pakistan. and taliban all of you divine power member of the parliament colorful arkansas document office and. our foreign minister of the taliban has lived in the safest place of the couple all abdul salam zaeef. person of the taliban in pakistan the embassy i know he also has a good life in the safest place of kabul anybody sometimes as a politician coming to the media this can go along that these killers all of the they are in power so what you're saying is it's a choice between bad we're going with us nato forces here and worse again with warlords and the taliban or is it all the same our history shows that we have powerful history we never accept occupation british and of course want to occupy afghanistan faced with resistance of all people rush as a superpower want to occupy our country our people with em

at least six afghan employees were reported killed inside the hotel. the taliban says it was behind the attack. >> it was a deadly late night attack, a group of suicide bombers and several gunmen made their way past checkpoints and into the intercontinental, one of the most heavily protected hotels in kabul. 10 people were reported being killed. confusion.the scene was of the guests hiding in the room while spore ra active gun fire could be heard. the afghan police engaged the attackers. the task made all the more complicated by working in complete darkness after the electricity was cut off. >> we heard those heavy blasts as well as the gun fire was going on. very intensified and it was very nervousing, the inner city gun. it was very complicated and the situation was very serious. >> then nato helicopters stepped in firing on the gunmen on the hotel's roof to bring the siege to an abrupt end. the security forces were doing a fantastic job of clearing them and they asked for our support. we stand by to enable the security forces and tonight the position to aid the