afghanistan. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday, march 16, 2011, the concurrent resolution is considered as read. the concurrent resolution shall be debatable for two hours with one hour controlled by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, or his designee, and one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: if it's appropriate at this time, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, half of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will control half of the time for the gentleman from ohio. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewo

forces afghanistan and the u.s. embassy in kabul which -- second, i want to express my deep appreciation for your support of vital capabilities for our troopers. the funding have provided has for example enable the rapid deployment of a substantial increase in the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets supporting our forces. to take one example, we of increased the number of various types of persistence surveillance systems, blimps and towers with optics from 114 this august to 184 at the present. there are plans for continued increases this year. it has enabled the rapid development of the all terrain vehicle version of the mine- resistant plant of vehicles. with 600700 field since i took command. your support as continued to supply commanders with another element of our strategy -- the emergency response program funding that has proven invaluable as a well- capitalized in rapidly on his hard-1 gains on the ground. -- hard-won gains on the ground. it has been instrumental in enabling key components o

and the greater afghanistan, pakistan -- afghanistan-pakistan region. there is no question as to why we went to pakistan -- as to why we went to afghanistan. at that time, the taliban controlled the country. the initial training of the attackers took place in afghanistan. we went there because of those attacks. if you narrow it to afghanistan, our objective was to ensure afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for al qaeda or other transnational extremists. the region has some other groups to certainly have aspirations in that regard. beyond that, i think it is important to recall that we had a total of about 10 hours of hearings on capitol hill. we also met with the top four as well. one of the themes i sought to stress once that it was only recently that we got the end this right in afghanistan. secretary gates says there are three phases to afghanistan. we got the early phase right. over time, we took our eye of the ball and focused on other issues -- it was a darn dog petraeus in iraq but when it all the resources. then we came back to af

we're turning around the war in afghanistan are we now and which way would that be and here's another question for you why are we where in the first place. you want to get off the streets or. the work. and life after afghanistan and iraq we're going to take a look at a valid up more veterans seem to be fighting this one about homelessness. good evening it's tuesday march fifteenth five pm here in washington d.c. i'm lucy catherine of anyone watching our t.v. now feeling our focus on the latest situation out of japan officials have confirmed that radioactive material materials leaked into the atmosphere following an explosion and a fire at a reactor at the fukushima nuclear power plants there now the fire is said to have damaged an area used to store spent nuclear fuel dangerous radiation levels have flourished upin to order some one hundred forty thousand people to seal themselves indoors now just how this crisis will unfold remains to be seen but when you fear and scrutiny over nuclear power is of course certain but what happened to investment in science and innovation indeed it seem

afghanistan right or afghanistan good enough. so we have measured objectives that are based on a very realistic assessment of the challenges that confront i there. confront us there. among the provision of basic services that i would add to what the secretary described and partly embodied in the shura council is the issue of resolution. this is an area where the taliban can compete with local governance if it's not done well. inteed, this is the area -- indeed, this is the area in which swat valley the pakistani was able to play on grievances because of the lack of speedy justice because of the way the system was set up there this northwest frontier province. so that is another important component of this, and again, this is all part of achieving that legitimacy in the eyes of the people, governance that serves the people, that doesn't prey on them, that is transparent and sufficiently, again, representative of integrity as well. >> thanks to both of you, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. rodgers. >> thank you, mr. c

troops in afghanistan.nd one of my highest priorities is to improve our capacity to counter the ied threat. just this past week i had the honor to talk to a wounded warrior from ft. bragg who was currently recuperating at walter reed. he was involved in february with an ied and has lost both his legs below his knees. and, you know, he's getting great treatment at walter reed and i was truly inspired by this incredible young man's service, honor and his attitude. but last year the obama administration started a worldwide effort to stop the flow of ammonium nitrate into afghanistan and the campaign, as i understand it, is running up against stubborn hurdles and neighboring pakistan where police routinely waved tons of ammonium nitrate shipments across the border into afghanistan despite afghanistan's ban on the import of chemicals. it is unclear whether the border guards are being fooled by clever attempts to disguise the shipments or whether they're being paid to turn a blind eye or both. and i think the pro

we're talking now about winning in afghanistan. what does it mean for us now in afghanistan? >> winning, to me, is defined by we have done enough so that our troops come back home on a regular basis, at no more surge, and that the afghans, the afghan army is able to stand up for themselves against the taliban. if somebody says what about the fact that karzai is a balm and cannot get things done, i say, hey, that is none of my business. that could still remain a mess. it may not turn out perfectly, but if we prevent the terrace from taking over, that is enough. -- but if we prevent the terrorists from taking over, that is enough. tavis: the president is hearing from critics, and the democratic party at their annual meeting last week passed a resolution -- his party passed a resolution encouraging him to get out of afghanistan quicker. they're pressing now on afghanistan. i raise that because he is hearing it from a lot of different people. what are they not hearing? obviously what you are saying, others are saying about the war not been winnable, the strategy is wrong, too man

it was meant to be an honest and open conversation about the state of the war in afghanistan and who better to report in general david petraeus himself the past eight months have seen important but hard fought progress in afghanistan over port card of sorts for those serving on the senate armed services committee like senator joseph lieberman of connecticut mogadishu under any illusion this is turning the question that seems to have many answers is in which direction it's turning here's one side we're here for a reason we're now. king progress we have made a great deal of progress in afghanistan since the last hearing of this committee on the subject just over a half a year ago while the security progress achieved over the past year is significant it is also fragile and reversible this line fragile and reversible uttered so many times in the last few days it may almost be worthy of a drinking game as progress remains fragile and reversible but in the same hearing room just last week a bit of a different tune was sung we have enjoyed. patchwork of peace in operation successes against

and so you're turning around the war in afghanistan. we are and which way here's another question for you why is the united states even there. so you want to get off the streets or. i'm sure some of them do it and life after afghanistan and iraq we're going to take a look at a ballot that more better veteran seems to be fighting homelessness. it's thursday march fifteenth seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm lucy coughing up and you're watching our team. now we begin with our continuing coverage of the crisis in japan officials there say that another fire has broken out at the fukushima nuclear complex and the tokyo electric power company which operates that plant so that there are efforts underway at the moment to put out the latest blaze we don't know if it's out yet but we will continue to monitor these developments for you but for now let's take a closer look at this company tokyo electric we're joined by investigative journalist greg palast who is with us from new york city to explain the connection between that company and the oba

forces in afghanistan and the u.s. embassy in kabul, which emphasizes the critical integration of civilian and military efforts in endeavors such as thatn afghanistan. second, i want to express my deep appreciation for your support of vital capabilities for our troopers. the funding you have provided has, for example, enabled the rapid deployment of a substantial increase in the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets supporting our forces. to take one example, we have increased the number of various types of persistent surveillance systems, towers with optics, from 114 this past august to 184 at the present, with plans for continued increases throughout this year. your support has also enabled rapid procurement and deployment of the all terrain vehicle version of the mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles, with 6700 fielded since i took command some eight and a half months ago. and your support has continued to provide our commanders with another critical element of our strategy, the commander

we are turning around the war in afghanistan. are we really and which way is that another question why is the united states even there. so you want to get off the streets or. to do it and life after afghanistan and iraq we're going to take a look at a battle that more better and seem to be fighting this one is homelessness. good evening it's tuesday march fifteenth four pm here in washington d.c. i'm lucy coughing up in of course you're watching our team now we're keeping our focus of course on the breaking situation out of japan officials have confirmed that radioactive material leaked into the atmosphere following the state an explosion and fire at a reactor at the fukushima nuclear power plant. now the fire is said to have damaged an area that's used to store spent nuclear fuel and dangerous radiation levels have forced to panta order some of one hundred forty thousand people to seal themselves indoors now meanwhile the united states has seen a tumbling of the stocks world stocks in fact tumble in a global selloff so just how

by not getting afghanistan as afghanistan instead of as a war zone, by not understanding it for its own sake, you find yourself unable to actually understand what we're doing there to begin with. so it's self-defeating, by and large. so as we sit there and think about the war and think about afghanistan and how to think about it in a critical sense without assigning blame or assigning evilness or nefariousness to someone, i think it's important to keep in mind that, ultimately, when we -- and by we, i mean americans, almost all americans talk about afghanistan -- we're not really discussing afghanistan. we're discussing what americans are doing in afghanistan. and this is true when you read the news, it's true when you see something on tv, it's always about americans who all have names and ages and hometowns and back stories and then nameless afghans who may or may not have a name, may or may not have a hometown, concerns or family members. and this break between the humanity of our own people and the humanity of afghans, i think, is probably one of the key stories that emerges in t

we are not trying to make afghanistan like us but afghanistan used to be prior to the prior three decades of civil war when the country enjoyed half a century of relative peace and rising standards of living. a second key challenge stems from pakistan. the global instability of the country, the insurgent safe havens that remain there, the ties to terrorists that still exist among elements that exist and seeming deceleration of our relationship amid the continuing reing of davis. we sought every means to compel pakistan to reorient its strategic calculus short of cutting off u.s. assistance, which we did once before to no positive effect. to be sure, pakistan deserves praise for some steps it has taken to fight al qaeda and taliban groups on the pakistani side of the border. what we must increasingly recognize is perhaps the most effective way to end pakistan ft. for terrorist groups is to succeed in afghanistan. ultimately, it is only when an afghan government and security force is capable of neutralizing the terrorist groups backed by some in pakistan that those pakistani leaders could c

-iran dialogue on afghanistan. if iran is going to be playing a more constructive role in afghanistan, it's going to expect something in return and this is the tricky part that the ambassador mentioned. can the united states continue to put pressure on iran over its nuclear program and still offer iran something to be -- behave in a more constructive manner in afghanistan? i think one of the answers is transit trade through iran from afghanistan and central asia. it should be encouraged, not discouraged and there's a question of energy pipelines through iran. this is a controversial topic in afghanistan. this is something that's been discouraged but if we want help to central asian countries it would seem that the more routes from central asia to the -- the more ways in which trades can go to india thailand, the better. this is the dilemma the united states is going to have to deal with. pakistan right now is far more unstable than iran is and if you want to benefit to central agency, you should keep that in mind.

service members and for people here at home is this war in afghanistan and that these documents prove that the obama administration the pentagon the u.s. government know full well that the war in afghanistan is lost that only that they cannot win the war in afghanistan if they're sending wave after wave of more young men and women for united states to have their legs blown off to be killed in a war that they know cannot be won and what bradley manning has done is tell the truth when all we're getting from the u.s. government is lies and lies and lies just like we were fed before the iraq war telling the truth it's not a crime telling the truth is heroic the criminals are the ones in the white house and the pentagon criminals are the ones in the white house and the pentagon reaction satan more i would hold so separate so the issues. look we whether or not we can win in iraq or afghanistan is not the point the point is a private in the army is not. charged with releasing that information there's been and the damage goes well beyond just what he released about iraq and afghanistan i keep

in afghanistan. and rolling stone contributing editor, michael hastings, who recently broke the story about the army using cyops propaganda on u.s. senators, was also there and he made this observation, he said, general petraeus is giving us the charlie sheen counterinsurgency strategy to give exclusive interviews to every major network and keep saying we are winning and hope the public agrees with you. madam speaker, it was a compelling briefing. i hope all of us in the 112th congress will listen to people like professor pate, mr. ho, and mr. hastings, but most of all i hope we'll listen to the american people who are angry, disillusioned, and pleading with us to bring our troops home. they want us to do that so there will be no more staff sar get mark wells' deaths like the young man from congressman poe's district. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, for five minutes. mr. quayle: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today t

i will go back to afghanistan. yesterday, we heard from centcom we are looking at increasing the numbers of afghan security forces about the recent target of 305,000. there is an acknowledgement that the cost of sustaining this kind of force would be over $10 billion a year while the government takes in $1 billion in revenue a year. i know that the point has been made by a number of people that it is cheaper for the afghans to be fighting this battle then for us to be paying for the american soldiers to fight it. that still does not address the costs and developing this force. as we think about how the forces continued to be paid for, what do we think is going to happen? >> thank you for your opening comments for the need for everything on the table as we try to do with our deficit and our debt. with respect to the afghan national security forces, there is an ongoing analysis you heard about what it would take for afghanistan after 2014 to defend itself. and that is not only their military but their police forces a

host: have you served in afghanistan? caller: i have not served in afghanistan.ave a number of friends that have been over there. some people who have been special forces in afghanistan have been across the border and a number of other places along the pakistan-afghanistan border. host: thank you for your call and for your service. let's go to alabama. virginia joins us. democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i feel it is time for us to pull out from afghanistan. karzai is the one that is getting rich. they need to investigate where the money is going. it's seems like more of our servicemen are getting killed and murdered every day. sometimes i wonder if there's not a set up over there whereby they know what the troops are doing. i feel that all of the money that this man has taken from the u.s. government -- he needs to be investigated himself. i feel that we need to pull out. we are not winning over there and it is time to bring the money home and bring our boys home. karzai should be taken now because of the fact that he h

we are in afghanistan because we were attacked out of afghanistan and the pakistani/afghan border remains an epicenter of terrorism that has the potential not only to destabilize the entire northeast and southeast asia, but still launch attacks against the united states. so our strategy is not focused on the government of afghanistan. our strategy is how do we defeat al qaeda, how do we prevent insurgent groups from overthrowing the government of afghanistan, and how do we degrade the capabilities of the taliban to the point where the afghan national security forces can sustain them? can sustain their security? now you asked me a very serious question. i'm going to try to give you an answer. it's not one i'm going to do in a sound bite. this has been a very tough fight. as of this morning, we've lost -- since 2001, 1,045 american soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. we have at the same time, the afghan national security forces have lost five times that. they are in this fight. and so they believe what they are fighting for is worthwhile. and i think that the consequences of our leaving

-iran dialogue about afghanistan. this will be a more constructive role in afghanistan and will expect something in return. this is the tricky part that ambassador eisenstaedt mentioned. can the united states continue to put pressure on iran of the nuclear program and still offer them something to be haven a more constructive manner? -- to behave in a more constructive manner? it should be encouraged and not discouraged. and the energy pipelines to iran. this is a controversial topic in afghanistan, and in washington something that has been discouraged. we want health turkistan and afghanistan. it would seem that the the more ways that trade can go to india and thailand, the better. this is something that the united states will have to deal with and reconcile. pakistan right now is far more unstable than iran. i think you should keep that in mind. as ambassador eisenstaedt mentioned, we're in a similar situation as to the situation with the old soviet union. it does not have to be a zero sum game. if there's anything

no one can pick the end in afghanistan. i give it a 10% chance that something happens that none of us could think of today. egypt. i mean, none of us anticipated tunisia, egypt and now libya. so something really wild could happen, and we'd all say why did we miss that? i give it a 10% chance that karzai is gone. don't know how but, you know, he's just no longer part of this equation after a while. something happens. i give it a 40% chance that we'll muddle through the way i'm talking about, we'll gradually pull our forces out, and it'll be okay. and i give it a 40% chance that karzai and the people in kabul pull a henry kissinger, and if you recall, secretary kissinger received the nobel peace prize in 1972 for solving the war in vietnam, and that there'll be some sort of messy deal between the taliban, the pakistanis and the afghans that will cause all of us to scratch our heads and say, why did we lose all those troops and all that treasure for ten years for that end result? which is another way of saying i don't know wha

know when can pick the end in afghanistan. i give it 10% chance something happens that none of us can think of today. egypt, tunisia, something wild could happen and we would say why did we miss that? i give 10 percent chance karzai is gone. i don't know how but somehow not part of the equator sham. 40% we will muddle through and gradually pull our forces out and it will be okay. i give a 40% chance that karzai and those, if you recall secretary kissinger received the nobel peace prize for solving the war in vietnam and there is a messy deal between the pakistani zandi afghans that cause us to scratch our heads to say why did you lose all those troops for that and resolve? another way to say i don't know what will happen. it was the book lessons then disasters talking about north vietnam from what i understand postwar interviews found it did not do that it infuriated them. these are controlled by a bill gates one of the. if i have a family member killed by the bill gates wannabe i would be enormously upset. what is the impact?

forces in afghanistan and the u.s. embassy in kabul, which emphasizes the critical integration of civilian and mitary efforts in endeavorsuch as that in afghanistan. second, i want to express my deep appreciation for your support of vital capabilities for our troopers. the funding you have provided has, for example, enabled the rapid deployment of a substantial increase in the intelligence, srveillance and reconnaissance assets supporting our forces. to take one example, we have increased the number of varus types of persistent surveillance systems, towers with optics, from 114 this past august to 184 at the prest, with plans for continued increases throughout this year. your support has also enabled rapid procurement and deployment of the all terrain vehicle version of the mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles, with 6700 fielded since i took command some eight and a half months ago. and your support has continued to provide our commanders with another critical element of our strategy, the commander's emer

happens in afghanistan. and they have a share community with whom they are feeling in touch. they have a big problem about drugs. and they don't like the taliban. because the talibans themselves did affect them a very badly when they were in charge in afghanistan and even killed, i think about nine to ten of the diplomats. so ignoring iran could be a big mistake. engaging it is the only way. but if not, iran and pakistan is if not even more important in terms of constructive engagement. so it's a lot of work on that. but i don't see this as a back -- show stopper at all. because they are all worried, all of them about the afghanistan that returns to kill, and none of them -- none of them wants afghanistan to go back into the hands of the taliban. the pakistanis are suffering enormously. in fact, they have been suffering more than afghanistan from their own taliban. so long answer to a very good and short question. i'm sorry. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm a journalist with the afp news agency. i wanted to f

whole future of afghanistan. the secretary was here a careful to say that those to work looking previously at preconditions for discussion have not converted those preconditions into negotiating objectives. there is no internal disagreement on these particular points. >> you are absolutely right. it is different. we do not represent them, they do not speak for us. i believe that the devastation is on record -- the administration is on record supporting. they have said that several times. they said it here. the thing is, how are you going to do it? i do not think there is anybody who says there is any solution, as it is a political solution. how are you going to do it? these contacts with the taliban, these ideas that are floating around, they're useful. absolutely. at the end of the day, many of you have followed -- it was three years ago in kenya, having left the united nations, having to mitigate the terrible consequences. the most important thing was to demand from everybody that he be the only channel. everyb

really our core objective, again, if you narrow it to afghanistan, is to insure that afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for alkyne that or some other would-be transnational extremism command the region does have other groups that are certainly have aspirations in that regard. beyond that i think it is important to recall, as i did explain on capitol hill. you know we had a total of about ten hours of hearings. to open hearings and then the senate foreign relations committee behind closed doors and also met with the top four as well. one of the themes that i really sought to of stress was that it is only recently that we have gotten the input right in afghanistan. secretary gates, as you know, three phases. the early phase that we got right. the country's impressive work. and then over time we took our eye off of the ball and focused on other issues on a rock. that during guy called patraeus that wanted all the resources. and then, of course, we can back to afghanistan as we started to get the situation into a reasonable place and got it on the glide path. when i took c

al franken who in january last year went to afghanistan with strong doubts and criticism but came back feeling much better but some say the reported use of psychological tactics to influence politicians could be happening not only in afghanistan but here in washington as well there's tends to be a belief certainly trust wedded to leaders during the war but you can't trust a military matters behind a war that's not really a new experience just. to its own benefit and. unfortunately congressmen are also willing to believe that now the pentagon is looking into the matter experts say they're going to try and downplay the effect of this record lieutenant general caldwell has already been night i think given such orders but if true for many it's going to be a for the testament to the willingness of civilian control over the military and today's america i'm going to shut down to washington d.c. . well some fools. a mindgames acclaims from a former congressman tom andrews he's in washington to talk to us here live on this on his way that for being here now how cool simple is it that the countr

afghanistan.sident obama has set this team to hand over securities for the national forces. speaking yesterday afghan president karzai outlined the first phase of that transfer. he named seven areas where afghan forces will assume primary responsibility this summer. their growing concern that the army and government may not be ready. a new report published today by the century foundation says the conflict has reached a stalemate, and that the only solution is a negotiated political settlement. it is called afghanistan negotiated peace. joining me now the two chairing ambassador lakhdar brahimi and ambassador thomas pickering. they have experience in this part of the world and the u.s. state department. i'm glad to have them back on this show but never together. what brought you two together on this report. >> i think that the century foundation had an idea that somehow the two of us might be able to work with them and an international group. we had nine internationals and seven americans, and prod

we want to help afghanistan. it would seem that the more routes from central asia to the sea, the more ways trait can go to india thailand and other countries, the better. this is a dilemma the united states is quick to have to deal with and reconcile. pakistan is far more unstable than iran. if you want a benefit for central asia, you should keep that in mind. as the ambassador manchin this is similar to the situation we had with the old -- as the ambassador mentioned this is similar to the situation we had with the old soviet union. iran will change. if there is anything we have learned from the middle east, it is that governments can change. it is important to lay the groundwork for a better relationship with iran. iran will change. if we can make some progress on this issue of afghanistan it may be easier to talk to iran about the nuclear issue about human rights and other issues we care about in the region. i will stop there and we will be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. that was excellent. let's

next we speak to russia's president special representative in afghanistan. he tells all nato cold war mentality prevents it from getting good advice on its operations in the region. so make up wolf president visits new representative to afghanistan it's great to have you with us today sir thank you very much now you've pointed to a cold war mentality that was preventing nato from hitting good advice do you think that they now accept that stable afghanistan is also in russia's interest or will you have to convince them. that. it's they should understand that first of all that stable lower growth than in russian troops because of german system it's much more closer to russia burned through three

the overall atmosphere afghanistan? >> interesting that we have not seen anything like that in afghanistan. by and large i have not seen the same in iraq either which i continue to keep tabs on for no other reason than people keep sending me stuff. when you invest a fair amount of time in the land of the two rivers when i left iraq i said i will always have iraq and the iraqi people on my mind and in my heart and i meant it. we sacrificed a great deal there and the fact is in iraq the demonstrations have been about inadequate basic services. is not about the government or the parliament. it is about their performance and something that malaki recognized. they have a reasonably responsive -- it took some time to form the government. it is seen as their government and so the demonstrations haven't been against that. they had their say. they were able to cast a ballot and execute their democratic right. their complaints is electricity, jobs and other basic services. in afghanistan we have seen very few demonstrations. they

the officials ordered groups then as the psyops teams to put pressure on congressman this is in afghanistan to get more money and support for the war. you can take up a story. were u.s. lawmakers brainwashed by the military when making key decisions on supporting the escalation of war in afghanistan that's a question posed by rolling stone magazine which alleges lieutenant general william caldwell the man in charge of training in afghanistan ordered psychological operations against visiting senators and congressional delegations to manipulate them into backing more funding and troops for the war there is the head of a special unit that conducts psychological operations now information support operations said he was told to provide quote deeper and now lasse's of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds. my job in psyops is to clean with people's heads you can't see any need to behave the way we want them to behave and perhaps and from doing that to our own people when you ask me to try

you hear the narrative that what we really want in afghanistan is a stable afghanistan, not dominated by the taliban but which they participate. so we can take our eyes off that and focus on our domestic problem. then third, we want the americans to stick around. we may not want to have them, have their agents in our streets or their predators flying on our skies, but we want them behind us, we want their support and their assistance. so here you have two diametrically opposed interpretations of this war from the same set of senior pakistanis and it's very hard to figure out which one they believe. >> charlie: you saw general petraeus and he is your friend and i assume he's candid with you. what's his assessment of karzai? >> well i'm not here to speak for petraeus, you know that charlie, and i can't do that. but here's what my observation. my observation is he's got a decent relationship with karzai. he knows he's dealing with a very formidable general. we have a sense of what karzai says to other people about petraeus. and petraeus has made some real progress with them. but look it,

in afghanistan. i believe the security council is voting today, is that correct? it is done and it has passed. he is talking about the u.n.'s role in afghanistan and the commitment development and security of the country, and he plays an important role there. there are 34 u.n. representatives in 34 afghan provinces. millions of afghans benefit from u.s. support, from food programs, health services, and infrastructure and development. afghans are asking to take a greater lead in all aspects of governance, development, and efforts to achieve peace. mr. de mistura clear that afghanistan makes -- takes its call for sovereignty very seriously. how should the transition take place? how can you in support this process as well as maintain its commitment to afghanistan development? these are some of the questions they will be a part of what mr. staffan de mistura will be discussing with us today. i will keep this brief because in his biography is in the flyer. he is one of the most accomplished officials havi

the population of afghanistan is around 29 million, and there's probably no more than 80,000 u.s. soldiers serving in afghanistan right now, but if you look at the stories that come out, you think the numbers are completely reversed. all the stories are about americans, and you see almost no images of stories about the afghan people themselves, so if you look at the dominant representational paradigm uc today, it is all about foreign soldiers. my idea was to try incurred counted to that a popularized narrative and focus on images and stories that really reflect that lived experience of conflict through the eyes of the afghan people. >> you are exhibiting with three other photographers. it is true all three of them have really focused in the areas where a lot of u.s. and allied forces are seeing action, are actually involved in combat, so your story is different than theirs. what does it mean to show your body of work along side of the stories that probably are more familiar? what kind of juxtaposition does that create for you as an artist? >> i think the strength of bringing the t

tell you about a regular we tell you on a regular basis about the military's missions in iraq and afghanistan but today let's look into another important element of war psyops archies lauren lyster will join me to discuss how the military works to sell a positive image when it comes to our war on terror and tax season is upon us and it turns out that there's somebody who isn't paying their taxes this year big corporations companies posting billions of dollars in profits we had they pay no income tax we're going to find out which corporations are getting that free pass and what if anything we can do about it and today is the one hundredth anniversary of the triangle shirtwaist factory fire it was called by some the day that the new deal began so what can we say one hundred years later about the plight of labor in america and it's friday which means the world host of the hottest stories making a buzz in our happy hour segment there's a new study about religious people that i think might shock you we're going to save all the details for the end of the show now our top story. it's day seven for a

i urge you not to talk about pakistan or afghanistan. this is a collection of nature with the army that leads the country. they are the pashtuns, pashtuns especially troublemakers. and sunni/shiite agendas. in these cultures, they are led by three mens and one german. and that's a terrible thing to happen. and we are two and a half million, where it's a combination of mormons and muslims. >> i've never heard of that characterized as mormons. i'm going to steal that line. >> yeah, the terrorists. but anyway, you know how the massacres have occurred by the sunni taliban, we have been smited by the sunnies for years. hard work. what i'm getting the community is paranoid, the country is collapsing, the taliban are murders the qatar people, and everybody was helping with the blood. my view, i've known for 40 years, afghanistan is collapsing and just like other places, like sudan, new nations, new states being created, very few people are prepared for that chaos. >> you and i are close to agreement about pakistan's problems today. you brought

forces in afghanistan. secretary gates told this committee a few weeks ago that he supported the decision to set the july 2011 date because it was necessary to, quote, grab the attention of the afghan leadership and bring a sense of urgency to them of the need for them to step up to the plate, to take ownership of the war and to recruit their own young men to fight. closed quote. admiral mullen said at the same hearing that the date, quote -- that that july 2011 date -- quote, has given the afghans a sense of urgency that they didn't have before the decision was made. the afghan army and police have added 70,000 afghan security forces over the last year and will meet the current target of 305,000 afghan security forces by october of this year. a large, capable, effective afghan security presence is what the taliban fears the most. because it would demonstrate that contrary to the taliban's propaganda that the war against the taliban and al-qaeda is a war the afghan people believe in, and it is being fought

that said the basis for not only afghanistan. we didn't even know afghanistan at the moment of that vote but also iraq and anywhere else. i'm trying to repeal that authorization. this has been the longest war in american history, ten years. i knew then it was going to create more anger and more hostility and that's not the way we should a dress global most and security. >> charlie: as you know when then state senator barack obama from illinois came out against the war in iraq and the invasion of iraq, he made a clear point saying i want everybody to know i'm not against all wars, i believe they're just wars. and you say the same thing. >> there are just wars but i don't believe that what we have done with regard to afghanistan is what i would categorize as a just war. >> charlie: even if it was only in response to al-qaeda, you don't think -- >> but al-qaeda -- >> charlie: that was located and originated from afghanistan. >> but we'd have to declare war then charlie. the congress would have to declare war and we would have to und

as a long border with afghanistan. it is a strategic concern about what happened in afghanistan. they have a community within they are feeling in touch. they had a big problem. the taliban did affect them very badly when they were in charge in afghanistan. they killed nine or 10 of their own diplomats. ignoring iran would be a big mistake. engaging them effectively is the only way. pakistan is not more important than just an engagement. there is a lot to work on there. i do not see this as a show stopper at all. they are all worried about afghanistan that returns to kill. none of them wants afghanistan to go back into the hands of the taliban. the pakistanis have been suffering enormously. long answer to a very good in short question. i'm sorry. >> thank you. i'm a journalist. i want to follow on what you said at the beginning about the strategy. you look at the violence in the south and the situation and the delay of any sort of military operation in that area. it is hard to see results there. you're talking more about the diplomatic -- >> i know that what time looked at it from

there are also an consistencies on the war in afghanistan in afghanistan integrated military and civilian surges have helped set the stage for our diplomatic surge to support afghan led reconciliation that could end the conflict and put al qaeda on the run but robert want kansas senior u.n. official just said quote it is fair to say that security in the country is at its lowest point since the departure of the taliban even secretary of defense robert gates said this just last week to a group of cadets at west point in my opinion any futures defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big american land army into asia or into the middle east or africa. should have his head examined as general macarthur so delicately put it there is also the matter of money our own economy weak and losing leverage to other powers like china and brazil and other frustrations voiced i want makers' doesn't make any sense at all for us to be borrowing money from trying to. give it to other countries especially giving it back to china. now when it comes to iran there is a clear position given by t