as a stable one in afghanistan. today if you are in pakistan and a national security adviser or and afghan adviser to president karzai, you are operating under the assumption that the u.s. is leaving. the clock is running out. we have to dispel that notion. >> nato said 2014. from 2010, that looks far off, but all the sudden time tends to creep up. does that not still send that message? we are exiting. >> platts acknowledge there were we were this time last year, we were talking about -- let's acknowledge where we were "the star-ledger" we were talking about 2011. it spurred a movement on the part of the afghan government. i think it was a strategic blunder to put that 2011 marker out there in the december 1 speech. >> do you agree? >> i think it has worked against our interests. >> that is less than a strategic blunder. >> 12 months later, we are talking about 2014. we were able to get nato allies to commit to 2014. the genesis of that 2014 state came from president karzai, from his second inaugural address. one of

back in afghanistan.asically they were very autonomous from pakistan and they did plenty of things that were absolutely against pakistani interests. so, it is very possible to find a deal with the border in the idea with neutrality in afghanistan. so because the taliban are part of a government they will obey pakistan i think is --. >> president obama is running out of time because next july 2011 he has to reassess its strategy. there are reports although denied, that there are plans for usaid to go into pakistan and do some operations against the afghan taliban. if america does that order of the dangers and benefits of that? >> first of all, the pakistani army is not fighting the --. the haqqani network are operating, i agree with that but the taliban as a separate entity and i think you will want him to explain that. the second part of your question is definitely a disaster. if there are boots on the ground from the united states inside pakistan, i don't think any pakistan government or anybody in the -

-- of afghanistan. that is the case right now, but that will not be the case. we will be focused 80% on security and 20% on a developer. the afghans will want to focus on the opposite way. >> ok, general, summarize the report in two sentences. [laughter] summarize. >> i would say, it is worth reading, so i encourage you to read it. there are a lot of interesting things in there. most importantly, it argues that the u.s., despite the fact we are in an era of different strategic context where deficit and debt will have a tremendous impact on our future role in the world, the u.s. still has a vital interest in the afghan- pakistan border area. to protect those interests, we have to develop a sustainable strategy that allows us to maintain a military presence not only beyond july , 2011. that presence takes a different form than it does today. because unconventional warfare, special operations forces, focusing on attacking and keeping relentless pressure on al qaeda, because that is one of the vital interes

presence in afghanistan. two air bases that would be beneficial to the afghan security forces, only if the afghans want it as a way to make sure this country never goes back into the hands of the taliban. that would be a good way to end the afghan conflict. >> you know, senator, i hear what you're saying and i'm actually startled by it. my recollection is this war was al qaeda and terrorism, not about nation building in afghanistan. you're now suggesting a permanent imperpetuity presence in afghanistan, the most corrupt country, a president who takes bags of cash from iran. what are we doing? al qaeda is in pakistan, somalia, yemen. why are we going to be sending american troops to die, to prop up a corrupt karzai who's been antithetical to what we believe in? >> well, my belief is that we're in afghanistan to protect national security interests of this nation. if you replace karzai, who do you replace him with? the people to replace him would be the taliban and the taliban would open up afghanistan once agai

model afghanistan's g.d.p. is about fourteen billion we spend one hundred billion my goodness those just do that money to every afghan and let them lead their lives no there has to be an in that is and there has to be i agree with the leadership with the model and the role we have deployed in the world but it has to be a row of basically noninterference in the affairs of others and if we do interfere as it were but it needs to be with smart power it needs to be with economic power with diplomatic power with political power it needs to be a concerted campaign to make the american example not one of bombs bullets and bayonets but one of genuine freedom and democracy by our example our example now do you think also since. the military industrial complex is so large since it's become natural for us to fight things like you said of bombs bullets and bayonets that that somehow reflects on why there seems to be such a drastic change in attitudes right now in the country why we see islamophobia how we see a cab in new

out of the afghanistan itself as a victim of that evil afghanistan as a country with nine hundred sixty thousand drug addicts which is why we say afghanistan as a victim of drugs it's a great evil for our country smugglers make huge profits we can say for certain and prove that international terrorists are active in the part of afghanistan where opium is grown and drugs are manufactured these are the most problematic areas of our country komang province is one of those there is no doubt that afghanistan was responsible for ninety percent of the world's opium production or opium is grown in provinces that like security they are the most troubled provinces there are international terrorist groups there that are very active we have already managed to cleanse twenty provinces of all they are now ruled by law we don't have any problems with those provinces do minister say that the international terrorists mistaken the most benefit from it right that's correct. let us judge fairly afghanistan as a major manufacturer of opium responsible for ninety percent of it on the other hand it's obvious

ever in afghanistan. it's part of than effort to win the hearts and minds which is something that roots of peace has been doing for a decade. >> the grapes are a big change. citrus all kinds of fruits. it takes an extreme poverty situation $2 a day on their farm. >> thousands of farmers in afghanistan are voluntarily sign up with the northern california group of roots of peace. they are learning they can make more money growing grapes than growing opium poppies for heroin. >> they are in a desperate situation. you have a perfect situation for civil unrest. they need to see there is a right out of their hole. improving their yields because it dramatic rim proves are income. >> many farmers are being trained by of a gangs hired and trained by roots of peace agricultural experts. average athe farms average about two and a half acres. it's called a hector. >> it will generate about $2100. grapes seven to eight times as much. grapes is dramatically. they are making much more than the poppies. >> so the executi

in some ways afghanistan. the bloodshed in afghanistan in the 90s after the soviets pulled out, the chaos in that country in the 1990s, even rights figures, something like 400,000 civilians were killed. this society imploded. that era ended when the u.s. went in in 2001 followed by nato. in the decades since nato has been there the u.s. has been afghanistan the highest estimates of civilian casualties are 30,000. then you find yourself sort of arguing with violence to prevent violence. in the world that does happen. on an intuitive level that doesn't feel good to talk that way. that is my job as a reporter. the politics, morality of all this got really complicated when instead of reporting on african civil war like sierra leone which was stopped instantly by the british paratroopers, stopped and that civil war, but now we are talking american soldiers who are in the country for a decade and i could not reconcile all those different questions and issues in my mind so what i decided to do was simply write about

go back to afghanistan.that has to survive the cyclical nature of the conflict in afghanistan. it's too soon to say if that's successful or unsuccessful. you have to wait until after the summer, after the fighting season. we'll know whether or not we have been successful in the long term in helmand and kandahar. i caution ambassador galbraith about the generalizations about everyone in the afghan government or all afghans being corrupt. that's bigots. >> a rebuttal and then time runs. >> i would love to go back to afghanistan but i can't because hamid karzai said -- issued an order if guy back. why? because he accused me of organizing the fraud that got him re-elected. in april. which shows you a bit how weird he is. and that's our partner. he steals the election and then he blames the u.n. for conducting the fraud. >> he told general petraeus he considers the u.s. and the taliban to be his enemies and given a choice he would side with the taliban. >> the taliban. >> how do we win? >> this is the nature of t

there is no army, no country when you're dealing with afghanistan and terrorism in afghanistan. that's what makes it very difficult. but this man who goes all the way back to the vietnam war took everything that he had learned from that conflict and from other conflicts, bosnia, etcetera, and tried to apply them to what is going on now in afghanistan. and that was one mission, perhaps, that he was not able to accomplish but he certainly gave it his all. >> well, jill, richard holbrooke was known to be tough and straight forward and sometimes that approach worked well and sometimes it didn't work so well. what was his relationship like with hamid karzai? >> reporter: sometimes rocky, but he was able to accomplish something at least. they were able to communicate. but there were some rocky periods. even some of the people who work with him said that it was tough. he was very demanding. and some of them, only i would say the strong survived in that. he did not suffer fools lightly and he really wanted to push ahead. and dealing with the media, you know, we were on many press planes

much more present in afghanistan and then that is why. impossible task the pakistan army now to fight against the afghan taliban because it's not what they consider their national interest. we are in a situation where particularly we are following different objectives. it's not very clearly said. and actually producing irrationality. one policy for india and one for pakistan. that doesn't make sense. now, what could we say about 2011? first thing is that the timing is going to be the key element, and that would be my last. the timing will be the key element. why? because if the negotiation stops with the taliban, the pakistani military. it won't be before the next u.s. president. so, the window of opportunity is basically an late spring and summer. october in the united states. so who will take this sort of risk. if nothing happens next spring is going to be after 2012. two possibilities. so able to adopt new policy. if it's a new president he will take some time. that is why, actually, what we are seeing in afghanistan, the whole thing i

obama drops in on troops in afghanistan to deliver holiday greetings. we are live in afghanistan.r, and more coming down. we'll show you how people hit hard are coping with a crippling storm. one of the top stories you're tracking, the artist who had a camera, surgery implanted in his head. holiday season, visit with security troop, for security reason, undisclosed visit we found out about an hour ago. senior correspondent ed henry started reading the tea lives a little earlier than that. ed, what can we expect to unfold during this trip? >> well, tony, the president is going to address u.s. troops shortly. we're not exactly sure what time. the schedule has been changing on the fly. this is a surprise trip. president leaving andrews air force base 9:00 p.m. eastern time. reporters in the small group of the reporters who were there with the president were told to show up. it was all kept very secret. they had their bags and electronic devices initially taken away. so they wouldn't start sending out tweets or e-mails to everyone. they want to keep it as secure as possible. the reaso

troops to afghanistan. among the positives, the report cited progress in dismantling and disrupting the leadership of al qaeda in pakistan; reversing the momentum of the taliban in afghanistan and recruiting and training afghan security forces. the president particularly emphasized the impact of u.s. air strikes against militant leaders hiding out in pakistan. >> today, al-qaida's senior leadership in the border region of afghanistan and pakistan is under more pressure than at any point since they fled afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it's harder for them to recruit; it's harder for them to travel; it's harder for them to train; it's harder for them to plot and launch attacks. in ort,l-qaida is hunkered down. >> reporter: but the president was more cautious about the situation on the ground in afghanistan. >> progress comes slowly and at a very high price in the lives of our men and women in uniform. in many places, the gains we've made are still fragile and reversible. >> report

institute of peace discusses president obama's trip to afghanistan.ly disclosed personal finances, assets and investments of

afghanistan is going to continue to be there. the u.s. will have to find somebody else to do the job that richard holbrooke was doing and do it as well. it is a job and people need to find a way to bring stability and insurer withdrawal at some point in the future of american and nato forces from their. they will have to [unintelligible] there are a host of civilian problems from the reconstruction to getting an afghan police force and national army up and going. in the case of pakistan, there is the issue of building trust between pakistan and the u.s. and getting over the mistrust our countries have towards one another. it is something that would require a level of engagement. i am not certain at this point who or how the u.s. government intends to replace what he brought to the table. >> just as a final thought from you. how would you sum up richard holbrooke in a sentence? >> he was a man of great passions and he was quite capable of being seen as very forceful. he was not a soft spoken diplomat all the time. he made it into an art fo

general says that president karzai is the missing link in the war on drugs in afghanistan . his inaction has allowed herin flourish as his accountant caltex minister what do you have to say to that. president karzai has been responsible in fulfilling his duties and the results are there twenty provinces i told you earlier have been cleansed of opium poppy some progress has been made in other areas president karzai attitude to these problems is a very responsible i don't agree with what general mcneill had to say. according to the agreements reached before twenty fourteen the afghans will assume responsibility for security in the country i am sure when they were assumed as an order to charge of their own country the efficiency of their work will grow at the same time i can assure you of the struggle against international terrorism a narcotic drugs is not a matter of one or two days it's a very long process this fight will continue for that international efforts are needed to have bases abroad destroyed afghanistan will be fighting for the arts thank you very much minister for

from afghanistan is the director for afghanistan central asia. we have heard the tributes, but what do you believe of the significance of his loss as seen from government circles in afghanistan and pakistan? >> i think that it is a great loss for the world, absolutely. especially for the u.s.. i think that he has a reputation as a great negotiator and diplomat. a few things happen whereby his success in this arena did not match his early success. there were a few things that were very important. the general impression in afghanistan and pakistan as highlighted, the entire civilian aspect. he played a role in surviving the bill with a long term civilian links between afghanistan and pakistan. he also played an important role when it was decided through the u.s. aid to put more of the power in the hands of the afghan government would most of the aid funding going to the u.s.-based ngo's. >> if i might come in, there was some concern fair to say in islamabad about his direct, no- nonsense style. that he did not understand the culture and politics of

and for our objectives i would certainly want to discuss the issue of afghanistan but. i believe representatives of these five organizations could discuss coordination of their efforts in tackling the problem of afghanistan and improving the situation in southern kurdistan. i'd even say that the fact that we're meeting to discuss all these matters will give an impetus to our joint efforts in maintaining security in the region more specifically i'll have a meeting with the always see secretary general to discuss the new always see initiatives regarding kurdistan the so-called peaceful police mission. we're willing to assist the always seeing these actions as we have been cooperating with the kurds authorities in stabilizing their situation and restoring order there. let's briefly discuss them to from. summit the nato summit has just taken place if i'm not mistaken back in summer you said i quote maters position is the exact opposite of that's all the c.s.t. oh there is no consensus among nato members regarding cooperation with the c.s.t. oh they obviously prefer bilatera

in afghanistan our surge is not simply military.e have expanded our presence from 320 civilians less than two years ago to 1,100 today. accomplishing our mission requires close cooperation between our civilians, our troops and our international and afghan partners. we have worked together to arrest the momentum of the taliban. civilians have been particularly instrumental in the progress we have seen in helmand and kandahar, and they will be critical in helping us consolidate the gains we have made in the last year, as we move toward a transition to afghan responsibility. our strategy also recognizes that rebuilding afghanistan is a global commit xhnt. the coalition continues to grow. today it stance at 49 countries. nato and our partners, including the many oic, the organization of islamic countries, that have recently joined the international contact group know that helping the afghan people and standing up against violent extremism is essential for the region and the world. this alirnment of our international effort was on full d

fled afghanistan nine years ago.enior leaders have been killed. it's harder for them to recruit, it's harder for them to travel, it's harder for them to train, it's harder for them to plot and launch attacks. in short, al-qaeda is hunkered down. it will take time to ultimately defeat and it remains a ruthless enemy bent on attacking our country. but make no mistake, we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization. in afghanistan, we remain focused on the three areas of our strategy. our military effort to break the taliban's momentum and train afghan forces so they can take the lead, our civilian effort to promote effective governance and development, and regional cooperation, especially with pakistan, because our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border. indeed, for the first time in years, we've put in place the strategy and the resources that our efforts in afghanistan demand. and because we've ended our combat mission in iraq and brought home nearly 100,000 o

meet the oprah of afghanistan with george. afghanistan with george.'s special k chocolatey delight cereal. ♪ so you can get your chocolatey fix... ♪ ...without undoing your whole day. ♪ [ barks ] ♪ old legs. p.a.d., the doctor said. p-a-d... p.a.d. isn't just poor circulation in your legs causing you pain. it more than doubles your risk of a heart attack or stroke. i was going to tell you. if you have p.a.d., plavix can help protect you from a heart attack or stroke. plavix helps keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots, the cause of most heart attacks and strokes. call the doctor about plavix -- please? i will. [ male announcer ] certain genetic factors and some medicines such as prilosec reduce the effect of plavix leaving you at greater risk for heart attack and stroke. your doctor may use genetic tests to determine treatment. don't stop taking plavix without talking to your doctor as your risk of heart attack or stroke may increase. people with stomach ulcers or conditions that cause bleeding should not use plavix. taking plav

. >> some 9,000 or so from iraq and afghanistan? >> that's what they say, yep. >> now, another issue that you're obviously intimately familiar with because you suffered traumatic injury from an ied in iraq is the catastrophic injuries that many of these vets are coming back with. at the water reid hospital you spoke to an army corporal about the situation and about her possible recovery. let's play what you said to her and what she said to you. >> how long do you think this recovery is going to take? >> maybe a lifetime for the mental. you know, you never know. >> reporter: i know that this has been a long road. do you think you'll spend a year walking better, dealing with ptsd you've got or do you think this is long term for much of your life? >> i think definitely the ptsd and tbi is more of a life thing. but the walking i think we can overcome and just take it for what it is and be glad that i'm still here. >> so tbi, traumatic brain injury, how are they getting the help and is it better now than it was? >> well, that's getting a

and victory in afghanistan in focus. and a child will lead them: why these hard hats have a soft spot for her. captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news world headquarters in new york, this is the "cbs evening news" with katie couric. >> couric: good evening, everyone. the bush-era tax cuts are due to expire in just over three weeks, but tonight house democrats are refusing to go along with the deal the president struck with republicans to extend them for everyone. the democrats held a private meeting today and decided not to bring the deal to the floor for a vote in its current form. congressional correspondent nancy cordes is on capitol hill tonight. nancy, the democrats are really angry about this deal, and they're letting everyone know it. >> reporter: they sure are, katie. in fact, reporters standing outside that closed-door meeting today could hear the house democrats inside chanting "just say no! just say no!" it was a stinging rebuke of the content of that deal and the way it was reached. >> but our caucus will n

we are talking about afghanistan. the president was in afghanistan yesterday. "a surprise visit" and we are talking about the taliban and the president addressing that. here is an excerpt of his speech. >> in our time, this 21st century, when it so many other institutions seem to beat shirking their responsibilities, you embrace your responsibilities. you show why the u.s. military remains the most trusted institution in america. that is the legacy that your generation has forged during this decade of trials. in iraq and here in afghanistan. that is the legacy that you are carrying forward. as general petraeus mentioned, one year ago i ordered additional troops to serve in this country that was the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks. all of those troops are now in place. thanks to your service, we are making important progress. you are protecting your country. you are achieving your objectives. and you will succeed in your mission. [crowd cheers] we said we would break the taliban's momentum. that is when you are doing. you are going on the offense and tired o

about afghanistan, specifically.t's basically, do you believe that this administration has managed its relationship with karzai well? or not well? >> not well. i'm sorry to say. i think this goes back to the period before the wikileaks stuff because, you know, ambassador eikenberry's cable, had an input to the strategy review, a very highly-classified cable was leaked, damaging his relationship with president karzai. and then, all of the discussions that are in the book of mr. woodward, the leaking of extremely classified stuff, was far more damaging to the relationship and management of the relations with karzai than the wikileaks. >> karzai went from being a trusted ally of president bush, had regular video conferences with him, to somebody who has turned into a sort of paranoid leader, if you believe what people are saying, who thinks that the u.s. wants to overthrow him and topple him. >> there is a huge trust deficit. he would like to get a long-term security commitment, with the united states. we're not prepare

in the war in afghanistan maybe many people feel they didn't want to be led into that war you know cameron has launched an inquiry today that looks at how you know british security intelligence officials might have been you know might have colluded with other intelligence officials into the torture of terrorist suspects british terror suspects you know you know britain went into afghanistan and when the soldiers went in they were plagued by a lack of equipment i mean what i'm saying is that since two thousand and one in the british public's mind that did the war if it has been hampered by in all sorts of ways and i think that at this time of financial insecurity in the u.k. it feels like many people don't want to be in this war and you know whatever whatever the politicians are saying i think that does seem to be deafening a british retreat from afghanistan are ten months all the time we have it thank you so much for being here definitely was a pleasure restrepo as the new documentary and we all can't wait to see still to come on the best of the a lot of show from two thousand and ten more

let us judge fairly afghanistan as a major manufacturer of opium is responsible for ninety percent of it on the other hand it's obvious that i hope you are wrong in the most restless areas we are but that this proves that there is a limit to international terrorist organizations on the taliban studies indicate of the taliban receives one hundred twenty five million dollars from drug exports therefore we can say international terrorists the taliban are organized crime groups are. those unable to commit a violent or to cut a grass when we say that millions of russians died from drugs nine hundred sixty thousand afghans are addicted to. afghanistan's efforts alone will not be enough while bank account is consumed five percent of drugs while the other ninety five percent are exported that's why we insist on international cooperation in the struggle against drug trafficking what is your strategy for fighting the trade more than. the drug problem has a domestic and an international side according to the strategy we've developed a joy told him exports were. trying to help poor peasants finan

back in afghanistan.ery autonomous from pakistan and they did plenty of things that were absolutely against pakistani interests. so, it is very possible to find a deal with the border in the idea with neutrality in afghanistan. so because the taliban are part of a government they will obey pakistan i think is --. >> president obama is running out of time because next july 2011 he has to reassess its strategy. there are reports although denied, that there are plans for usaid to go into pakistan and do some operations against the afghan taliban. if america does that order of the dangers and benefits of that? >> first of all, the pakistani army is not fighting the --. the haqqani network are operating, i agree with that but the taliban as a separate entity and i think you will want him to explain that. the second part of your question is definitely a disaster. if there are boots on the ground from the united states inside pakistan, i don't think any pakistan government or anybody in the -- will be able to su

the military isn't the big problem in afghanistan but the government, the corruption within afghanistan, within the government. also the ties between the obama administration and karzai administration, those ties are ruined at the moment. they have to work at building that relationship. when you talk to analysts they will tell you the military, they are doing their jobs. the diplomats need to do a better job building a relationship with president karzai who has been very fickle when it comes to the americans and international community. he as well as the majority of normal average afghans who live out there believe the international community will leave them. president karzai is trying to protect his country and himself. >> atia, jack, jim miklaszewski at the pentagon, thank you. >>> our troops have been in afghanistan for nine years. my big question, what will we accomplish by staying a few more years if we haven't been able to accomplish it so far. reach me on twitter, facebook and contessa@msnbc.com. >>> a high stakes vote in the house is set to take place to extend tax cuts for all

ambassador to afghanistan in 2005-2007. to my immediate left, david sanger the chief washington correspondent for the new york times. he is a winner of two pulitzer prizes. we are delighted to have all of you here today. i want to start with the general. based on your study, what do you think we can expect in july of 2011? >> the president will probably give us a fair understanding of that letter this week. i do think we will see the beginnings of the first elements of transition next summer and afghanistan, bills will be very, very small movements. i think realistically to get an understanding of whether the strategy in place now is going to work, we will not be able to have a good approximation of that until late summer next year. those troops did not close in afghanistan until about september of this year. with our seasonal fighting season, there is less combat activity in the wintertime. the spring and summer are the real fighting seasons there. we will need to wait a bit to determine whether those 30,000 troops have be

the battle against drugs in afghanistan is intensifying with a new player joining the fight a central asian drugs quartet has been formed here in moscow with russia pakistan to take a stand pledging support to call on the sidelines of the meeting or to talk to the afghan drugs chief and that interview is next here on r.t. stay with us for that. i wanted to have million russians are addicted to dan harrowing afghanistan produces ninety percent of the drug a u.n. resolution describes the flow from this central asian country as a threat to international peace and stability here with me today is the afghan counter anacortes minister mr is that our money thank you very much minister for being with me today. thank you i'm glad to talk to you. today the any a while you might have gotten drugs is about sixty five billion dollars that's five times bigger than the country's national budget who is behind this industry who takes the most benefit from it and instead we do a shark hunt out of the afghanistan itself as a victim of that evil afghanistan is a country with nine hundred sixty thousand d

it is not just in of afghanistan. it has to be in pakistan and afghanistan. we have the vantage in a afghanistan of having boots on the ground so that we can defeat rather than disrupt. we have to defeat that kind of capability. you need both. this brings the structure to this. this brings the enduring peace to this. will the peace be able to endure. will the capability provide the sufficiency to endure as we go forward? that is the question that we are trying to answer. >> i would like to ask about the issue of the pakistani safe havens. they usually only do this after their own government has been directly threatened. you still have al qaeda and taliban leadership detected in other parts of pakistan. what specifically do you plan to push the pakistani government? if they do not go ahead with this, what can the u.s. do? >> first of all, i would say that the pakistanis have indicated their willingness to move into other areas. as i mentioned in my opening remarks and as secretary clinton referred to, it is hard to overstate the impact of the flooding in pakis

is on track in afghanistan. he released a year-end strategy review today that says al qaeda's senior leadership is weaker than it's been since the u.s. invasion in 2001. in much of the country, the taliban's momentum has been stopped or reversed, and u.s. troops will begin leaving in july as scheduled. more now from david martin at the pentagon. >> reporter: a year ago, the u.s. was, by many accounts, losing in afghanistan. now the commander in chief says the tide of battle has turned. >> we've gone on the offensive, targeting the taliban and its leaders and pushing them out of their strongholds. >> reporter: defense secretary gates is just back from visiting u.s. troops in afghanistan. >> the sense of progress among those closest to the fight is palpable. the taliban control far less territory today than they did a year ago. >> reporter: but progress is only temporary unless afghan forces can take over the fighting from the americans. and that will require 18 to 24 months, depending on the area. for instance, t

on critical issues to our national security like iran sanctions transit to supply our troops in afghanistan working on securing loose nuclear materials and the relationships and trust that are built from the new start treaty spill over into a whole host of other national security issues that are a vital importance to america these shoe of trust and america's reputation globally was addressed by the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee every senator has an obligation to ask that question of themselves over the course of these next days are we a credible partner can other nations rely on us what happens when the present united states negotiates a treaty. and he comes back here and the rest of the world sees that truth. not in the substance of the treaty but in the politics of the day and if the treaty does get bogged down this year chances are the new senate which is going to be more republican and obama hosts teil will put off the new start indefinitely maybe for months or even years to get a check on our t. washington d.c. well republicans should move beyond the election cycle