of afghanistan. >> ok.ou. >> there's no record that i'm reviewing that goes into the argument you are giving in the guide lines that are so unclearÑ hear the argument in its entirety. starting on october 4th, a look at the roles, traditions of the supreme court. >> tonight, a memorial service for walter cronkite who died earlier this year at the age of 92. tonight, starting at 8:35 eastern on c-span. >> this morning, we'll talk with ron pollack about healthcare and this weekend's taxpayer march. in about an hour michael crittenden to discuss the u.s. financial

mission in afghanistan. in an unclassified version of the report that the "washington post" got, the top u.s. commando warns that the mission will likely result in failure unless troops are increased within the year. in stark language, he called coalition forces "poorly configured and inexperienced in local languages and culture." he proposed a robust counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes protecting afghan civilians and building up the afghan government and the army. president obama is currently reviewing the report and other approaches to afghanistan, appearing on the sunday talk shows this weekend, he expressed new reservations about sending more troops before there was a strategy. >> if supporting the afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward. but if it doesn't, then i'm not interested in just being in afghanistan for the sake of being in afghanistan or saving face or in some way sending a message tha

section in afghanistan.o through a university consortium that would set up a service through usaid, unfortunately, usaid lacked the vision to enact this vision. i told the airmen whose civilian lives were farmers an possessed other expertise to empower the afghans. for over a year the agricultural development teams, a.d.t., helped afghans value high -- have high-value. decades of war in afghanistan have left most of the country mired in 18th century practices. these a.d.t. teams provide agricultural specialists to help the afghans rebuild their agricultural no how and sow the seeds of peace in afghanistan. thanks to the a.d.t.'s hard work poppy production has been virtually eliminated where it was the second most prolific producer of poppies before. the first of these teams started to work in february of 2008. the second rotation is under way, and i just joined friends and family back in missouri to celebrate the sendoff of the third rotation of the a.d.t. by showing a consistent commitment to the people, th

and afghanistan. the administration is capitulating to ration demand rewarding russia for its divisive policies and actions despite the administration's adamant statements that it wasn't linking the follow-up treaty with missile defense on the eve of negotiations they give russia what they wanted. partly it seems to me the way to start a negotiation. contrary to the intelligence and evidence reports that indicated growing iranian threat. the obama administration claims the threat is now downgraded. we have seen nothing to indicate any downgrade of the threat. iranian behavior on the past year clearly demonstrates their intent and capability to develop long-range missiles. obama is clearly reneged on his pledge made in prague that he would move forward with european missile defense as long as the threat from iran exists. the u.s. and europe will be bald orval. iran now has an open invitation to focus on long-range missile development which is already doing. this decision didn't appear to be made on the

go to afghanistan.he reason of the postponement, about troop levels, at this point, if you're going to debate that point, is because i think, they're in the middle of trying to figure out what is the long-term strategy. everything i understand about what's going in afghanistan, not to get off on a tangent here is this. they're trying to come up with a new set of metrics, trying to redefine the mission, so that when they make the decision to send troops, they can tell some of the folks on the left in congress, look, we have an exit strategy, here it is. the problem is they know they can't go asking for more troops without having some sort of end game in place, ready to go. >> we've been there for eight years. a good question. let's go back to this question. i think a lot of people are disturbed when you talk to people. you go out and speak to groups. you hear somebody stand up in a group. maybe these are republicans, but i think they've got a good point. they say, look, the country is worried about the s

afghanistan is a case in point. i know that there are many here in washington who are frustrated by the restrictions some nato nations put on their forces. by the time it takes for nato to make decisions, by reluctance of some countries to send more forces to the mission, even for training, let me be very clear. i understand those frustrations, and i am already working hard to address this very real problems. i also think that people are missing the forest for the trees. yes, running this mission as a nato operation has its share of challenges. all things considered, that is to be expected. but those challenges are far, far outweighed by the benefits very much for the united states. first and foremost, all 28 nato countries are in the mission. without exception. that is solidarity. and there are others, all nato partners with troops in the field as well. nato and non-nato, but all under nato command. this is no ad hoc coalition of the willing. this is an alliance that is proving its staying power every day. which br

what we do in afghanistan i think will affect the outcome in iran. >> smith: let's stay on afghanistan for a second. what if afghanistan... if general mcchrystal doesn't get the 40,000 troops he asks for? >> we're going to lose. we'll be driven out. the taliban will come back stronger than they were before. the moderates in afghanistan will go back in hiding or get killed. nato will be seen as a failure. and america will go it alone in the future. we can't let nato fail in afghanistan. this is nato's fight, just not america's fight. the taliban have come back for a reason. but the good news is that afghan people don't want them back. with additional military power we can defeat them. we have to do what secretary clinton said. push the karzai government or the next government to do better. but until you get the military situation right, you'll never get better governance. so failing in afghanistan is a disaster for nato and it will affect pakistan. the same people trying to fight the pakistani government are the same ones trying to come back in afghanistan. >> smith: senator lindsey gra

forces in afghanistan. four marines killed in the east of the country while on patrol with afghan forces and in kabul, the capital of afghanistan, a suicide attack on the airport there. at least three people known dead. others are wounded. it was a dramatic development in a day that has seen many dramatic developments. for the first time today, nato commander admits that civilians were among the dead in a bombing on friday. america's top commander stanley mcchrystal now launching an investigation and banning alcohol at the command post in kabul. that is after reports that subordinates were too drunk or too hung over to answer his questions following the strike. however, pentagon spokesmen did tell the associated press that the general's frustration over contacting his staff did trigger the booze ban. he is clearly doing serious damage control. >> i think it's a serious event that is going to be a test of whether we are willing to be transparent and whether we are willing to show that we are here to protect

how are you going to say you are doing something to help afghanistan when the war is not even afghanistan in it in pakistan. that is where bin laden is and how are we going to defeat afghans when we are not doing nothing in pakistan? when the wall went up our country promised us we would never occupy another land again. that is one promise we have not kept. i'm sufg from post-traumatic stress almost 40 years after the vietnam war and i only did one tour. what do you think will happen -- and i can't get help from the government? what will happen to the troops going over there tour after tour when they get back? they will be in the same s&p i'm in. -- they will be in the same shape i'm in. i love president obama and i voted for him but he is wrong trying to continue this war. they have been fitting for centuries and there nothing we are going to do to change the situation over there. host: mr. boot? guest: well, i thank the caller for his service in vietnam but i respectfully disagree with his characterization that nothing happened in vietnam after the u.s. left. a lot of things happened in

but we're trying to make in afghanistan something afghanistan has never been. this whole concept of securing the population doesn't simply imply protecting them from harm. it implies programs of economic development and political reform. the creation of legitimate institutions of governance. these have never exited in afghanistan. we imagined that we can create them. i doubt that we can. and again we'd want to emphasize that it's something that we need not do. snefern you mentioned.... >> andrew has written off the last eight years of effort which have not been insignificant and which have gained us nothing. >> ifill: i want to ask you to follow up on this question about governance because of course we're still waiting on the results of this election. how much of our success in afghanistan was tied to the credibility of karzai or whoever emerges victorious. i'll start with you and ask andrew exum the same question. >> my sense is that the project has really... i mean, karzai has been our g.m., to make a comparison to the vietnam of long ago. he's been our guy w

section in afghanistan.o through a university consortium that would set up a service through usaid, unfortunately, usaid lacked the vision to enact this vision. i told the airmen whose civilian lives were farmers an possessed other expertise to empower the afghans. for over a year the agricultural development teams, a.d.t., helped afghans value high -- have high-value. decades of war in afghanistan have left most of the country mired in 18th century practices. these a.d.t. teams provide agricultural specialists to help the afghans rebuild their agricultural no how and sow the seeds of peace in afghanistan. thanks to the a.d.t.'s hard work poppy production has been virtually eliminated where it was the second most prolific producer of poppies before. the first of these teams started to work in february of 2008. the second rotation is under way, and i just joined friends and family back in missouri to celebrate the sendoff of the third rotation of the a.d.t. by showing a consistent commitment to the people, th

a stake in the future of afghanistan. there are measures progress that you can examine. this is part of the debate at the moment that we are having as a result of the review. that while it is essential that we show that the very high proportion of explosive devices are dismantled, it is a central also for the longer term that we show we have built up the afghan ability. it will be measures of that that comes within the civil institutions, the scope of the police, and the afghan army that i think will be the decisive measures of the future. yes, i understand that the british people need to know that what we are doing is part of a strategy to move things forward. they know that the taliban has changed their tactics. we have to show that our response to that by moving forward with afghan responsibility to their own affairs is something that can make a difference. i believe it can. can we increase the amount of trading quickly? yes, if we make that a very important part of what we are doing. other countries are ready to play

he also campaigned very clearly on more focus on afghanistan. >> if al qaeda is not in afghanistan, whytay there? why send more troops? it might be the wrong mission. >> it's precisely the same reason president obama gave during the campaign. because we went into afghanistan, set up a new government, because al qaeda was there originally with the training camps and now to abandon that government under pressure would be disaster for the united states. >> jack rice, how credible would mr. bare's information be at this point as a former cia expert? >> i think it's quite credible. the first thing we have to consider here is iraq is not afghanistan. afghanistan is a completely different animal. if we assume we roll more troops in that's going to make a difference? contemplate how much landscape we have to deal with. we have to contemplate just the fact the karzai government may be questionable at best, illegitimate at worst. we're trying to separate the question of afghanistan. i'm thinking about this as a former cia officer. we have to separate this question of afghanistan from pakistan and

now, i will talk to afghanistan.e of inspections will be in kabul this october inspecting the mission and should issue a report later in 2009. about 12 in paris, including a highly experienced team leader, a former ambassador, will conduct the post inspection of all mission aspects, including contacting, mission programs, consular affairs, and security and protection. additionally, the office of inspections will issue a report later this month on the department's mining program in afghanistan. in august, we released a report covering the performance of u.s. training center, formerly blackwater, under the terms of its afghanistan contract. mero also is participating in joint state dod audit of the afghan national police training and mentoring program. they will report at the end of this year. looking forward to 2010, mero plans to work on a number of department-funded programs, including the following -- refugees and internally displaced programs, public diplomacy, and the embassy's guard forces. regarding investigati

osama bin laden isn't in afghanistan. al qaeda hasn't got bases in afghanistan. and i think we could continue to ensure that was the case. >> sherr: with 10 or 20,000 troops on the ground, can we, can the united states, can the allies, "a" keep the taliban out? and "b" keep al qaeda out? >> we need to distinguish between taliban and al qaeda. the answer is, of course, if we reduce the troop numbers, the taliban presence, particularly in the areas where they have a lot of support would grow. and that is a risk. and that's a problem. and it's a very sad thing. because the taliban are a horrendous group. i mean, this is the problem that we're dealing with here. they have been vicious, their treatment of women is appalling. many afghans are horrified by them and don't want that, and anything that we can do to try to support more positive elements in afghan society, we should do. but we cannot try to write a blank check. if we go for sort of all-or- nothing approach, i think we're going to end up abandoning the country in five years time, being less kind than we would

troops to afghanistan?s fix" dead serious tonight with david gregory, moderator of nbc's "meet the press" and politico's roger simon. we went to war after the bombings of 9/11. we are at war still, longest war in history probably now. is this a call for an escalation by the admiral? >> i don't think there is any question that it is. the admiral has been clear. military leaders have been clear. there's got to be parody between the mission and the resources. if they're going to do a counterinsurgency, a nation-building effort in afghanistan, the u.s. needs more troops and they're going to be there for a while. the president has an important choice to make. >> roger, that choice is politically packed but it's real. it's not a public relations issue, it's not about campaigning or getting votes, it's about whether this country stays at war at full strength or whether we begin to pull back out of that war. >> it is real. we have gone from a mission creep in afghanistan to a mission gallop. you heard the admiral s

has 62,000 troops in afghanistan. by the end of this year, that force will number 68,000, as part of a surge the president ordered earlier this year. but the american commander, general stanley mcchrystal, and other military leaders have warned the war is not going well. and mcchrystal is expected to recommend adding thousands more soldiers and marines. president obama's election opponent last year, republican senator john mccain, lent his support today to another troop surge. he said the u.s. cannot wait. >> i believe it's a false choice to try to grow the afghan national army while holding back on any additional us combat troops. there are vital areas that are controlled by the taliban and their allies today it'll require u.s. military force to shape hold clear and build in those areas and if we await the day when the a.n.a. has increased in size and capable of carrying out all of these operations fully on its own, it may well be too late. >> suarez: as of thursday, white house press secretary robert gibbs would not

we've seen that in iraq, we're now seeing it in afghanistan. the president has really tough decisions to make and he should be listening to those in charge who he put credibility in. >> president bush had begun the process of withdrawing troops, that was not particular to president obama but on afghanistan, he didn't campaign on getting our troops out of afghanistan. at this point does the debate about iraq now from liberals from the progressives start to become applied to afghanistan? >> no. i think these are separate issues and i think they are treated as separate issues. if you read the move on e-mail urging people to call the white house to say they do not want escalation and they want a distinct plan how we're going to get out of afghanistan, a good exit strategy, i think you'll notice that the tone is very different than the communication we saw around iraq. it's much more reasoned, it's much more measured and it's a pretty simple message which is that if this is what you want, if you want an exit strategy out of afghanistan you need comm

now i will talk to afghanistan. our office is inspections will be in kabul this october inspecting the mission and should issue a report later in 2009. about 12 inspectors come including a highly experienced team leader, a former ambassador, will conduct the post inspection of all mission aspects, including contracting, mission programs, consular affairs, security and protection. additionally, the office of inspections will issue a report later this month on the department be mining program in afghanistan. in august, we released a merrill report recovering the performs of u.s. trained center, formerly blackwater, under the terms of its afghanistan contract. merrill also was participating in joint state d.o.d. audit of the afghan national police training and mentoring program. they will report at the end of this year. looking forward to 2010, merrill plans to work on a number of department funded programs including the following. refugees and internally displaced programs, public diplomacy and the embassies dark forc

state department contractors in afghanistan. the commission on wartime contract and in iraq and afghanistan purpose top state department officials and embassy contractors involved in alleged misconduct. photos were recently released showing armor group embassy contractor employees and reportedly engaged in alcohol- induced incidences of nudity and sexual misconduct in afghanistan. this program is one hour, 40 minutes. >> mr. kennedy, my understanding is you will provide a statement. you have graciously invited others to join. if there is a specific question, your the leader of the group. we will look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, sir. thank you for the opportunity to appear before the commission today. i appreciate the commission's ongoing review of these important contractual issues facing the u.s. government, in particular the state department in iraq and afghanistan. the secretary of state and the entire leadership of the state to part ensure your deep concern about the outrageous conduct by a small group of armour

and afghanistan we showed if u.s. forces in aufing that he -- in eafl. >> in addition to that, the two store in pakistan two star, one, one, star, a flag officers and're operations are out there because of the enormous security. we try to build a network of networks. help to some degree by the concerns of the activities of iran. so that's sort of again -- thing sets the stabling. before we start the conversation since it's about leadership, we auls off used to use this because this was a metaphor for what tfers what we're trying to do in iraq. the task or the missions and what you're trying to do is get the cattle but boy it's tough and it's raining side wies. this might be an i.e.d. we're riding for glory. a handful of us are outriders. we're all trying to get it going. the point was walls this slide to make the, to illustrate the idea that leaders and counter insurgency with a slight degree of discomfort or chaos of course, and again, the mells poe tame yum standard, involved nonstandard tasks that we spend . i know

and afghanistan.ot enough people, period, not enough people with the skill sets that are required in these contingencies within the foreign service, either state or usaid. it requires a process to bring in able talent from other agencies and from the private sector. and that still, frankly, does not work very well. it's called the 3161 process. i can tell you that it's painful in the extreme to make that work, work quickly, getting the right people in the right places. i know the administration has put more emphasis on building up what's called scrs within the state department as a means of providing a civilian reserve, if p you will. i would applaud that. but a great deal more needs to be done to put in place the structures that will allow an administration to identify and quickly bring to the field the numbers and the skill sets that simply do not exist within the established foreign affairs agencies. >> i think it's good you point out the difficulty of this. people glaze over this and senator lugar

you don't hear the afghans in the combat zones in southern afghanistan or eastern afghanistan talking about al qaeda. that's why america originally invaded afghanistan way back in 2001. because al qaeda was given sanctuary by the taliban. america recognized that as a national security threat. well, that national security threat is no longer here. it is based in park st ed in pa. there is very little al qaeda activity. the day to day fighting, the bulk of the bombings, the bulk of the shootings, almost all of them are being committed by afghan taliban. so this war now is not so much about osama bin laden and his al qaeda network, anderson. >> and the taliban, peter, is totally different than al qaeda. i mean there are linkages in pakistan. but what's the linkage? >> increasingly the taliban. they were a influential group of people when they ran the country. but the jihad is operating like al qaeda in iraq. they have molded together with al qaeda which is part of the problem. >> but when -- i mean is it accurate that this is a battle against al qaeda? >> certainly not here, anderson. as

the point is al qaeda was in afghanistan. al qaeda wants to be in afghanistan, and rather than play arm chair general here, i want to listen to what general mcchrystal and general petraes have to say. it appears they believe we need more troops to successfully carry out this counter insurgency policy. that we have perhaps no more than a year or so to accomplish that, and, therefore, the more time we take making the perfect decision, which you can never do in the miltdz of a war in any event, the less likely we're going to succeed. i think the president needs to get about it. he will have republican support if he effect waits the recommendatio recommendations. i think he needs to make that decision as soon as he can. >> final thought on this guantanamo bay a? >> i believe that it's proper to slow this down in guantanamo, and with respect to what senator kyl just said, we've got a lot of good people looking at the situation with afghanistan. secretary gates among them. general jones among them. people who bring a lot to the tae

enterprise was in afghanistan. watch. >> to a certain degree there is some of that going on. >> is that what the american people signed up for? >> right now the american people signed up i think, for support of getting at those who threaten up. >> tom, are we fulfilling our central mission there? >> david, i want to pick up with admiral mullen. he gave a really smart speech this week to a veterans group, in which he said i would rather debate this issue than ignore it. and what i think he was implying there and here i think he knows, actually the last time i went to afghanistan was following him and i saw a lot of things that he saw. and it was very clear to me that the strategy has chand. basically, what the military has concluded is that the only way we can possibly succeed there is by building the regional government that will protect and serve the afghan people so they won't want to sign up with the taliban for any number of other reasons. that's what they have concluded, but the only way to do that is with sta

afghanistan. this will be his first meeting. >> thank you all to the second of a major speecspeeches. i recognize a number of faces in the crowd. we heard senator richard lugar delivery speech on the future of the alliance and provided congressional perspective on debate. for any of you who were not here, we will have the transcript on the the website and it was also taped by c-span who is here with us again tonight. it is an honor to have you both with us again tonight. i also want to extend a particular thank you. this entire series has been supported by them and it is great to have you with us. mr. secretary general, i hope your address will spark major debate here in the united states among key legislators. we were lucky enough to host to year during the transition when we had some very good conversations. we hope that this forum will help you achieve that. it is a particular pleasure for me now to pass to senator chuck hagel, one of america's leading foreign policy thinkers. what i mean by a

troops to afghanistan. and why can't the pentagon keep track of how many combat awards it has given out over the past eight years. but first defense secretary robert gates decided the air force will take the lead on a third attempt to acquire new aerial tanker planes. last year they sloacted a modified version of the air 330 jet liner over r over boeing 767. boeing contested the award and the world trade organization in a recent preliminary ruling agreed with the u.s. government that airbus may have benefited from unfair trade subsidies giving it an edge in world markets. >>> with request for proposals to replace the aging tanker fleet how will the wto ruling influence the contest for more than $100 billion worth of new air craft? joining us today are two experts on this issue, richard aviliapo of the teal grep and dan griswold, author of mad about trade why main street america should embrace globalization. thank you for joining us. dan, let's start with you. what is the wto ruling about. what is the compla

the war on afghanistan. the reason we went in, for a lot of people was to get al qaeda and get osama bin laden. some saby osama bin laden is still out there. is it this administrations goal to get rid of that guy, then we win. what is the goal in afghanistan? >> the large goal in afghanistan and that region is disrupt, dismantle and destroy al qaeda and its extremist allies. we know that's where the planning for the horrific event that happened eight years ago started. they ended, unfortunately, in this country. we want to prevent that from taking place again. we are looking for and want to capture and kill osama bin laden. i think, that, in and of itself can't be the total policy. there's a series of very bad people, terrorists bent on murdering thousands of americans that we have to be focused on. i think this administration has been focused on that since coming in. our goal, again, is to disrupt, dismantle and destroy al qaeda and its allies. >> can you look at this via two enmys, there's al qaeda, which

>> reporter: how do you end the war in afghanistan?appening here is any indication, the answer may lie in winning the peace. it is a very fragile peace, however, as you heard in that peace. the marines will say in a matter of days the taliban would return here if they were pulling out. there are setbacks in concert, reminders of how dangerous and deadly the mission is in afghanistan. michael ware traveled on the road from kabul to kandahar. it is now a taliban death trap. here's michael's report. >> reporter: the cost of the afghan war are staggering. the loss of lives, the billions upon billions of dollars and yet what has it delivered? looking around, talking to the u.s. military, it's clear. it war is not being won. for most ordinary afghans, this perhaps is the simplest, clearest measure of that. this is highway number 1. it's here kabul ends and 300 miles down that road is kandahar and the taliban heartland. i remember when taking the journey from kandahar to kabul was more than 12 exhausting hours, but in 2004 american aid money

the elections in afghanistan.ncy is making this very difficult. >> the problem obama got is this. if he draws down troops as biden seems to be suggesting, i think you lose afghanistan to the taliban and he loses the country. if he maintains the present level of troops, mcchrystal the commander saying in effect we are losing the war or headed for mission failure unless we get more resources, i.e., 45,000 more troops or somewhere up toward that number. think the political imperatives and imperatives on the ground and his lack of knowledge and the fact he's being boxed in by a secretary of state and by the republicans and by generals and mccain, i think that probably argues for a temperizing decision to send more troops but not 45,000. >> that doesn't sound like a thoughtful thing, dee dee. it seems to me he walked into this. i don't want to fight for iraq. that was a mistake. i will fight for afghanistan. it reminds me of jack kennedy saying i'm not going to fight for laos, though eisenhower said to do it. i'll figh

what's going on now in afghanistan. what are the similarities and differences to what our soldiers are facing in afghanistan to what they faced in iraq during the height of the insurgency there? >> well, that's right. i was thinking about this earlier and i would put afghanistan right now where we are in afghanistan to where u.s. forces were in iraq, right around the beginning of 2007. it's at a time when there were initial so-called surge operations but it would take another five or six months before we really saw any kind of tangible, positive changes. it was the time when the k.i.a.s killed in action were just sky rocketing. support for the army, for the operation at home was plummeting. and there was a political void as richard just described at the top. the government in baghdad was absolutely paralyzed just as the government in kabul is paralyzed for different reasons. so i think it is an uncanny situation. and very, very much parallel to what we saw and question saw big changes occur after that. >> and i have to

in afghanistan, a french soldier has been killed and nine others have been wounded in an attack in afghanistan. that is the french news agency. more on-line at bbc.com. hundreds of protesters have faced off with armed police in the chinese city of urumqi. the demonstration was broken up by teargas. locals demand official action over a series of bizarre stabbings. this is two months after 197 people were killed in ethnic rivalries between the uighurs and han chinese community. michael bristow is in urumqi. >> police officers are forcing people of this bridge and the busy intersection in urumqi. i'm not quite sure what is going on. a few moments ago, hundreds of police officers with the rifles over their backs came rushing down the street. they fear people will be coming back to this spot. they have come here to try to prevent anything else from happening today. >> also, california authorities believe the deadly wildfires north of los angeles were deliberately lit. it was started by an arsonist. two firefighters were killed on sunday while fighting the fire. north korea says it has successfully

that, of course, afghanistan. after this (announcer) sleep can help lighten your mood... ...and improve your concentratio tylenol pm quiets the pain and helps you sleep. because the better you sleep, the better you feel. get what dermatologists now recommend to fight aging... in new aveeno positively ageless multidefense. a combination of a high spf and powerful antioxidants... designed to reduce lines and wrinkles in just 4 weeks. you weren't always my favorite day. with all the pet hair in the air, i'd spend class preoccupied, bothered by itchy eyes. but now i have new zyrtec® itchy eye drops. it works fast, with just one drop, to relieve my itchy eyes from allergies for up to 12 hours. no other allergy itchy eye drop works faster or longer. which is good, 'cause there's a lotta paws to shake. with new zyrtec® itchy eye drops i can love the air™. (announcer) find it in the allergy aisle next to other zyrtec® products. woman: (thinking) so, i stick this bounce bar inside my dryer, and it'll freshen my clothes aut

footprint in afghanistan. some want the president to take a more forceful stand in laying out the case for war to the american people. but passing health care reform and questions about afghan president hamid karzai's reelection may slow the process. joining me now from washington is senator carl levin. he is the senior senator from michigan and chairman of the senate arms services committee. welcome, senator. >> charlie, great being with you. >> rose: tell me, was there anything important about the timing of what you said over the weekend? >> well, we just got back from a trip and we've been spending a lot of time on this issue and what i became convinced soft that before we send additional combat troops-- and those are words which i select very carefully-- before we commit to additional combat troops, that we should spend some real effort to strengthen the afghan army and the police. and we have got to do a number of things that we have not yet done in order to do that. but we should put the focus on the afg

enterprise was in afghanistan.atch. >> to a certain degree there is some of that going on. >> is that what the american people signed up for? >> right now the american people signed up, i think, for support of getting at those who threaten up. >> tom, are we fulfilling our central mission there? >> david, i want to pick up with admiral mullen. he gave a really smart speech this week to a veterans group, in which he said, i would rather debate this issue than ignore it. and what i think he was implying there and here, i think he knows, actually, the last time i went to afghanistan was following him and i saw a lot of things that he saw. and it was very clear to me that the strategy has chand. basically, what the military has concluded is that the only way we can possibly succeed there is by building the regional government that will protect and serve the afghan people so they won't want to sign up with the taliban for any number of other reasons. that's what they have concluded, but the only way to do that is with s

we cannot lose in afghanistan. losing afghanistan is a problem. it will be the end of nato.reta: is president obama going to follow but his general on the ground is telling him? >> he is very worried about sending people into combat, as he should be, but those who suggest a different strategy, a counterterrorism strategy, where you use less troops, we tried that. greta: is this like the military light thing? >> yes, we did it from a distance. in battle, they folded. only when we put more american troops in iraq, living with the iraqi army, fighting with iraqi army did they get where they are today, and we need the same thing in afghanistan. greta: of august 2003, at john mccain said we needed more boots on the ground -- in august 2003, john mccain said we needed more boots on the ground. has anyone called john mccain and said, "what do you think?" >> we are about to do what we did in iraq, not have enough power. i think we have forgotten the lessons of iraq very quickly. i hope the president will listen to the commander. these are the commanders that turned iraq around, and

we chased al qaeda ad of afghanistan back in 2001. -- out of afghanistan back in 2001. they are now in what as known as the federally administered i tribal areas of afghanistan. host: is this a new direction for conservatives? guest: i think part of the conservative opinion in this country is certainly against the war. i think george is now playing a the role of during the vietnam war. -- i think george is now playing the role of walter cronkite during the vietnam war. this is when lyndon johnson decided he could not run for president see -- presidency again because once walter concrete is against the war, he has lost america. ithe war is very unpopular, and will require -- if we're serious about reaching out the taliban, as other people have said over and over again, we have to be there for the long run, and i would imagine that would be 5 to 10 tiercyears. i am afraid that our allies will not be with us for 5 to 10 years. host: you had a piece yesterday. you read that president obama is not linking with the blackberry as some have suggested, but lyndon johnson with a

wh to do abo afghanistan, what's e strategy. all washington talking about a story bob wooard about neral mcchrystas assessmen which han linked to t paper. wel talk to rajiv chandrasekaran and h analysis of the story. >>here's a lot of consternation here othe part of t military saying, you know, you've had tsssessment now for many days, why aren't there more meetings on this? why aren't you guysocusing in on bearing down this? we're fighti a war out there and we need washington to able to multitask. now, admitted, healthcare is the top priority. the administration wants a bill out of congress soon. but there is frustration, palpablerustration on the part of the military,oth at the pentagon and out in the field in afghanistan. >> rose: also this eveng, an analysis of iran byaleh esfaiari. u may remember her, she the scholar from whington who went toisit her 93-year-old motr in hran and was arrested. >>ad whington not located th money and hadashington enged iran, this would not have hapned to me andoday we woul't have se other iran

we have afghanistan. we now have the virtual afghanistan. i think obama is doing the right thing, taking out a blank piece of paper, where are we now? what is the threat and what the strategy? >> this is the thing that has baffled me. i don't understand why he doesn't want to know the troops numbers are. >> if you're going to build a house, you want to have a plan. before you call in the carpenters and or how many carpenters you need. >> i wonder how much it's going to cost to have that plan. it's not another issue. you want to know if u can resource those troops. because if you have a plan and you don't know the troops -- i think this is what frurated the people at the pentagon. why can't we talk about the troop numbers and clearly, we know a lot of the reasons we're not talking about them. >> we're going to talk about them, because general mcchrystal is going to have to go to that building behind us and talk about it. all of the republicans on the house -- on the senate armed services committee want him to testify. he will testify. but, ma

not unlike afghanistan.ncerned because it's not about the $1.5 billion as it is the five-year commitment. so our strategy is i think much more comprehensive with pakistan than it used to be. that said there are limits of the sovereign country, and they are in charge of their own country. >> thank you. i see my time is out. thank you. >> thank you senator hagan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to add my thanks to you and your sons and wife for all of the years of service. also to the appreciation for the integrity and forthrightness brought to this job. i can tell you it's appreciated on this side of the river. there's been a lot of talk about afghanistan, and i'm going to ask some questions on that. before i do i would like to point out that as, you know, we're doing this defense review and it's very important with the new administration is, and i hope that we don't lose on either of the river on the larger aspects that in the term ground commitments that can affect structure and not play out. and in so

nation building in afghanistan? >> you're asking, do the american people have the patience and perseverance and will to put hundreds of thousands of troops into afghanistan for five years? the answer to that question, chris, is no. just because you asked the right question at the beginning, look, the question for barack obama ought to ask general mcchrystal is this. general, if i give you the 45,000 troops, can you do the job you're talking about, protecting the populations, getting control of the cities, fighting al qaeda and all these things. how many are you going to need for exactly how long to do it? chris, a majority of the american people already think -- oppose the war. a majority don't want the troops going in if. we have a short timeframe here. if i looked at it, i would say, quite frankly, i don't think we have it within us in terms of the value of what we're going to get for it, the possibility of us winning it and what's it's going to cost over that time to really do it. barack obama has got to say, do

policythe united nations, president obama is said to be considering important policy shifts on afghanistan and the middle east. >>> the president says iran must be held accountable if it continues to pursue a nuclear weapons program. the iranian leader also speaks out. >>> we will take you to jamaica for part two of our "signature series" on the battle against aids. tonight one woman's personal crusade to end the stigma attached to the disease. >>> and from south america, from peru, an unusual twist on global warming. winters there are actually getting colder with dire consequences. >>> from the world's leading reporters and analysts, here's what's happening from around the world. this is "worldfocus." major support has been provided by rosalindp. walter, and the peter g. peterson foundation, dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility and addressing key economic challenges facing america's future. and additional funding is provided by the following supporters -- >>> good evening. i'm daljit dhaliwal. >>> tonight we want to step back a bit and assess where u.s. foreign policy is heading,

is president obama preparing a new strategy for afghanistan? and fireworks in the senate over the latest healthcare reform bill. all that plus the fox all-stars, special report from the united nations starts right now. welcome to the united nations headquarters in new york. i'm bret baier. president obama today told the u.n. general assembly here that america is seeking new engamement with the world, to find a global response to global challenges. senior white house correspondent major garrett reports on a speech that was heavy on criticism, including some of the united states. >> president obama's first speech to the united nations general assembly openly acknowledged past grievances against the bush white house >> but added the days of reflective anti-americannism in the world body must end. >> after all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point fingers and stoke divisions. anybody can do that. responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. >> to a degree, mr. obama legitimized anti-bush sentiments. >> part of this was d