senators, you will find a programs inout afghanistan. you will read programs that are designed to address crop control and training and capacity building. you will read of some of our efforts to engage in important international partners in the u.n. and u.k.. read of our proposed approach to monitoring and used then where we best available sources to evaluate sources in the field in the light of security and resources. i hope that you will find the outline of the comprehensive drug strategy. i read the media like everyone hasidism inetect reporting that i do not share any more that i share the pessimism of those who reported that columbia was a failure. i do not promise you a successful resolution of the counter narcotics challenge this year or next year. that, with your support, a sustainable and adaptable counter narcotics program that builds capacities for the afghan government to address drug challenges in the .ost 2014 era i thank you and i look for to your questions. >> thank you. thank you. and very honored to be here i offer my w

in afghanistan. or facing a lot of problems feels taliban and al qaeda still remain at large and taliban are fighting the americans threw up the american troops and international troops on the ground and they are getting improved. on. the ground and. afghanistan is the first corrupt country in the war and. international community felt the democratic. say that. continues to thrive you say that democracy hasn't been established the government is corrupt you talk about al qaeda and the taliban in a state of resurgence will the local security forces be able to handle this environment when american troops withdraw. and this issue of deer is another feller of american. and international community and afghanistan because they end up past ten years they were not able to build afghan security force forces to be able to be able to face the challenges the challenges in this country and. to be able in the future to confront the challenges and taliban forces and the taliban fighters and the. forces. in afghanista

what the mission was about, why we were in afghanistan. and why it was necessary to be clear that we weren't staying in afghanistan in a combat mission forever. >> republican lindsey graham, who was just in afghanistan, is skeptical that mr. obama is committed to working out a deal to keep at least a small u.s. force to lock in security gains. >> he is awol when it comes to leadership, and when it comes to afghanistan, we have a chance to get that right. he hasn't talked to the afghan president since july. >> carney noted mr. obama briefly exchanged greetings with afghan president hamid karzai at last month's memorial service for nelson mandela. >> how could the two leaders not talk in month? >> they have had discussions in the past. there's not a lot of mystery about our views on this document. >> allies of the president, meanwhile, are raising questions about a curious passage near the end of the book where gates writes the president ended a meeting about iran by warning if anyone was writing memoirs, he had not made a final decision abo

says it wants to help but most iraqis appear wary of any more american assistance then there is afghanistan washington plans to finally leave this year the sad reality for all involved it's the fact that washington may never be able to leap. to cross-talk iraqi afghan legacies i'm joined by my guest richard murphy in new york he is a former u.s. career in boston or to syria and currently an adjunct scholar at the middle east institute also in new york we have don de bar he is an anti-war activist and host of a daily radio program and in washington we cross to peter van buren he is a veteran of the u.s. state department who served in iraq and he's also author of we meant well how i helped lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the iraqi people gentlemen cross-talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it peter if i go to you first in washington the blame game is raging again who lost iraq who lost afghanistan mr gates is a. memoir of his time in office is really getting a lot of people upset and probably rightfully so from a if you're in t

all right gentlemen let's switch gears here let's talk about afghanistan richard what's your reading of what's going on in afghanistan because karzai you know he talks a lot about the rule of law but it seems like the deal he really wants with the americans about remaining something keeping some troops there it's all about how much he's going to get paid it's all about mr karzai isn't it. well he's. certainly no no virtuous figure when it comes to straightforward government in our sense of the word that there has been a major corruption problem and it's something that the karzai leadership has done nothing about as far as i can tell so. now we are leaving the if the military is going to come out with the exception of a few thousand troops if those arrangements can be worked out and the. has the government or has the structure of afghan society changed because of our intervention during this past decade i think we have done some useful things in supporting the rights of women. it's people ask will is that really america's business to intervene in that in that sphere well that's that's

is growing increasingly impatient with the president of afghanistan.efense secretary chuck hagel suggested that time is running out for hamid karzai to sign an agreement that would let some u.s. forces stay in the country beyond the end of this year. as the troops prepare to withdraw after 12 years of war, discussion. >> they're prepared to russian or the threat on roadside bombs and now they are on their way out of the country. they are flown over the stunning snow-covered peaks of the hindu kush mountains across northern afghanistan. they load before their onward flight of the country. forces leaveonal afghanistan facing an uncertain future. a weekend corrupt government. they are ending up because it has been won but because of a timetable drawn up in london and in washington. for all of the lives lost and money spent, it could have been so much better. troops board the same plane. this is redeployment on an industrial scale. flying around-the-clock as the american withdrawal moves up moves up a gear. the relief is visible as men relax for the first

peter if i go to you first in washington the blame game is raging again who lost iraq who lost afghanistan mr gates is a. memoir of his time in office is really getting a lot of people upset and probably rightfully so from a if you're in the white house i mean and we have to look at what's going on in iraq now what obligation does the united states have to reintroduce itself in a greater military way not with troops not boots on the ground but what obligation does the united states have to save the molecule government well the answer is none and not that anything could actually help the united states state spent nine years applying hellfire missiles and drones and automation and attacks of all sorts of kinds and none of that worked it is the definition of of mental illness to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results introducing weapons into iraq at this time from the united states will likely have as much success this time as it did the last time ok richard if i can go to you in new york i mean this is kind of deja vu all over again do you do the same thing a

afghanistan but still that. american forces the need to first the forces are operating in and different parts of the country and developed as and homes of afghan people to targeting taliban militants and i would members of the government of afghanistan demands. the stop of military operation and develop as of afghanistan but american forces and in it two forces say they are targeting the militants not the civilians sometimes they killed the civilian some civilians by by ms. this happened again in the country and the government of afghanistan sees six children and a woman. have been killed in air strike by need two forces but need to in a statement and offer to step up and say that we are targeted the commander of taliban and some other taliban fighters in that area probably we have we have targeted civilians but we are going to end investigate. that ends today and and. mr you mean as we can see things are not getting better on the ground floor of the locals in afghanistan but let's not analyze astray she specifi

commander in afghanistan actually didn't have command over all the american troops serving in afghanistan and i ask two successive chairman of the joint chiefs to fix it it was ultimately my responsibility and i took too long, i finally fixed it but to too long to get there. that is just one example. >> to follow up quickly, you write in the book that richard holbrooke, the special envoy, and the ambassador were working against the reelection campaign of our allies there, hamid karzai. and you didn't seem to be very happy about that. how did that happen? >> first of all, hamid karzai may have his shortcomings but he knows what is going on in his own capital so the idea that we could do this and him not know we were trying to get rid of him is pretty naive in my view. and so when you see all these problems hamid karzai creates for us, his knowing that for all practical purposes we attempted a. against him in the summer of 2009, probably didn't help the relationship. >> and he is still there nursing some resentment i am sure. so i have some questions from the audience. here is a statement,

there were two things about afghanistan and our debates on afghanistan that troubled me.ne was the fact that the politics became part of the debate in the way that it did. but another -- and another was his suspicion of the motives of senior military officers in trying to get him -- persuade him to add additional forces. and i guess there would be a third, which is that although he made these courageous decisions with respect to afghanistan, he seemed unwilling to ever go before the public and say why this war was necessary, why the cause of the servicemen and women was noble and just, and why their sacrifice was worthwhile. and it was that lack of passion, that lack of open conviction about the importance of success in afghanistan that troubled me. because the troops out there in afghanistan know the score. and they know that they're not hearing that message from the commander in chief. his reservations, that i talk about, i think as much as anything were not so much about the military campaign as they were a number of other aspects of the strategy that weren't working.

already, they e making inroads in southern afghanistan and eastern afghanistan. and that is with 50-plus thousand american and other foreign troops on the ground right now. if 50,000 can't do it, how could 12,000 do it? >> nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel, live for us tonight in sochi, russia. richard, i really appreciate you staying up to do this for us. it's good to see you, my friend. >> reporter: my pleasure. >> thanks a lot. >>> all right. lots tole come tonight including how rock ribbed tea party principles were defeated by a pizza. that's still ahead on debunktion junction. stay with us. >>> this is a fight that belongs to the iraq cankies. that's exactly what the president and world decided some time again and we left iraq. so we are not obviously contemplating returning. we're not contemplating putting boots on the ground. this is their fight. we're going to help them in their fight. >>> okay. this is not the most important thing in the world, but for the record, this is generally believed to be the first official white house press secr

afghanistan were. and i took too long and i finally fixed it and i took too long to get there. that is one example their reelection campaign of the allied air how did that happen? >> first of all, he may have his shortcomings that he should have kept those going on in his own capital so the idea that we could do this, and him not know that we were trying to get rid of it is pretty naive in my view and so when you see all of these problems that he creates for us and the attempted against him in the summer of 2009 when didn't help the relationship. thank you for protecting my family and country and get well soon it is my and sending the chairman of the joint chiefs is responsible to the president the chain of command doesn't include the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff nor does it include the vice president. it goes from the president to the secretary of defense to the combatant commander. he's one of only two. he is the president's senior military adviser and he's the chairman of the joint chiefs,

a crime in afghanistan could be tried in afghanistan in american law as a compromise but i think it's very important when american support for ongoing operations in afghanistan is tenuous to say the least that the american public doesn't believe that it will be throwing good soldiers to the afghan to the mercy forgive me of the afghan judicial system twenty fourteen so it's a it's an important point of debate. britain's admiral allen west who was head of the navy when the u.k. went into afghanistan has said the operation was a waste of time calling it the teacher but it's called failure also your thoughts on that. is that it's a bit early to judge i think whether it's been a complete success or a complete failure there's quite a lot of politics being brought to bear individually and by groups in all of the participant nations but with respect to my views on it i believe that what we tried to achieve over twelve years or so and of course now i am there as a prisoner is to set the conditions whereby an afghan government can deal in a nonviolent way with all of the groupings involved inc

relationship in afghanistan. and indeed, the collapse of our security agreement, which is the deal that would allow u.s. forces to stay in afghanistan after 2014. our assumption heading into the negotiations was that it would be obvious to the extent that they are kind enough to devote any troops to stay, they would jump on that and not miss the deal. and we have found ourselves perplexed that president karzai has refused to sign the deal and making up a variety of conditions, some of which cannot be satisfied and is himself turning by loss of the security agreement is what he believes is leverage on his part. to go back to your question, 10,000 troops make the difference, i would say yes. see where we are in the security situation in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have made great strides. they are far morrow bus, far more competent than they were a year ago. they had -- they are now providing security in afghanistan on their own for about half a year. the taliban over the past several months launched a

the first question is about afghanistan's security. american forces on the ground have kept them pinned down. they are getting bolder and their spokesman wants to give the impression that the foreign troops are being driven out with their tails between their legs. they are moving around and have control over the villages. they have their own administrative systems there. limited parts are under foreign control but they cannot flee to get out of them. he foreign forces are so scared, they are confined to their bases. >> and according to you, the same is true in another province. >> broad swaths are under our control. >> in april, people will vote for a successor to president karzai that took over in 2001 when the taliban government collapsed. some want to link up with presidential candidates. the taliban leadership is dead set against that. >> whichever the foreigners want, it will happen. not legitimate and the candidates are not legitimate. people don't think it will lie with the taliban and. they have created the most extreme religio

if has to do with afghanistan. i'm very concerned, general gene, as you mentioned the status force agreement that we have a failure to negotiate that in iraq. now we're looking at al qaeda and iraq. -- taking over a large portion of the country. we're faced with the same i did limb ma now with afghanistan. i think carr city's playing a lot of politics with us, and lack of a better word, he's jerking the chain a little bit. trying to play to his local base, if you will. his local politics. and there's been some talk of what is called a zero option. which would result in a complete 1900% withdrawal from the reason. can you tell me what impact if exercise would have on the security to the homeland, and in our fight against al qaeda? certainly. listen, karzai as we know is the material figure, and he frustrate us for the entire time he's been there. the election around april. fringe a policy perspective we should not react emotionally to him a lot i understand why people would. look beyond him. there a new leader in af

later, general mcchrystal, the commander in afghanistan, his assessment of where we stood in afghanistan leaped. basically saying that, if there wasn't a significant increase in troops, there would be mission failure. >> do you believe that general mcchrystal leaked that memo? >> i do believe -- first of all, i don't know. i don't believe general mcchrystal leaked it. >> but someone with his interest -- >> may have. >> and the president thought he came from the military. >> obsolete. and frankly at this point, the odds probably favor that. and then, just a week after that, general mcchrystal gives a speech in london. and in the q and a, the question-and-answer period afterward, he answers in a way that basically dismisses out of hand the option the vice president had been putting forward in our internal councils. >> which is a kind of war terrorism. >>) of course, that late. so you have in the space of about two and half weeks three different -- oh and one other thing is general betray trees gives a new view to a columnist who had been a former george w. bush speechwriter in which he tal

to afghanistan we go as time ticks away before nato troops pull out of afghanistan and the u.s. is growing increasingly frustrated with the country's government is still refusing to sign a security pact which would permit american soldiers to remain in the fragile state . explains the absence of an agreement could leave afghanistan rather to what is a major taliban resurgence. after thirteen years in afghanistan washington is counting down together with our allies we will complete our mission bear by the end of this year and america's longest war will finally be over. but ending a war isn't the same as winning one when it comes to afghanistan peace is far from certain and the past ten years there were not able to build afghan security for forces to be able to face the challenges and this country and to be able in the future to confront the challenges and the taliban forces and the taliban fighters and al qaeda forces and the taliban have been active in the past two weeks alone the group has staged numerous attacks in kabul kandahar nimrods helmont and nanga har in fact ministry

>> when we arrived at the white house, there was no afghanistan strategy. it was a mess. and what the president did was focus the mission -- >> -- what do you say to the parents to those who lost a son or daughter. >> he also said i believe the president cared deeply about the troops and their families. i never doubted obama's support for the troops. >> a spokeswoman for the national security council baseballly takes the high road and says the president greatly values secretary gates' service to the nation. >> i do think this is an indictment of the president that rises above everything else he has done in his presidency. >>> more scathing words from former defense secretary gates. he also writes that he thinks president obama didn't believe in his own strategy and didn't consider the afghanistan war to be his. former new york city mayor rudy giuliani joins us. good evening, sir. >> good evening, greta. >> well, this book excerpts and reviews that's taken the nation by storm. i'm curious. we haven't read the whole book and i'm mindful what happened with obamacare when we

you have commanding general in afghanistan after commanding general in afghanistan say we cannot drone our way to victory. you have the president of the united states saying this war, like all wars, must end. yet, this war shows no sign of ending. we face this fascinating turning point this year. so the first question you would want to ask is actually what is this war that we're fighting under the 2001 authorization for use of military force past seven days after the attack on nieflt. obviously, there's at ground conflict in afghanistan. combat operations will end in december. what else do we know about what else is happening? from official government sources we hardly know anything. we have never seen an official government accounting of how many targeted killings or drone strikes there are. where they have been carried out. how many civilian casualties, what the intentions were, what the effects were. we, those of us out here in the unclassified unverse don't know any of this. many of our elected representatives don't know any of it either. a few of our elected representatives, so th

ending progressively -- both governance in afghanistan as well as u.s. relationship in afghanistan. and, indeed, they are seeing collapse of our leverage, not the least in the bilateral security agreement which is the deal that would allow u.s. forces to stay in afghanistan after 2014. our consumption heading into the negotiations was that it would be obvious that we extend, we are kind enough to devote any tips to stay. they would jump on that and not miss the do. we have found ourselves shocked and perplexed by the fact that president karzai has refused to sign the deal, is making up a variety of conditions, some of it perhaps cannot be satisfied, and is himself turning by loss of the security argument into what he believes is leverage on his part. to go back to your question, does 10,000 troops make a difference, i would say yes. let's see what our industry situation in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have made great strides. they are far more robust, far more competent than they were a year ago. they are now providing security in afghanistan on their own for about half a

the government of afghanistan afghanistan faces a looming threat of the taliban's resurgence as kabul and washington wrangle over a proposed security deal to end the thirteen year war. this is r.t. international law to mustardy center here in moscow where it's just past midnight and ten pm in ukraine where the president has signed a law that gives amnesty to all demonstrators detained during the riots in the country on condition the protesters stop their blockade of streets and government buildings meanwhile the country's opposition leaders are at a security conference in munich where they've got a few important meetings lined up including a one on one with the u.s. secretary of state john kerry well earlier i spoke to daniel mcadams he's the executive director of the ron paul institute and he says washington support for ukraine's opposition is bordering on the offensive. by what rights to see have any authority to to to undermine a legitimately elected government in tell the president of this country what he should or should not do you know what's really funny because the us is the u

the first question is about afghanistan's security. american forces on the ground have kept them pinned down. they are getting bolder and their spokesman wants to give the impression that the foreign troops are being driven out with their tails between their legs. they are moving around and have control over the villages. they have their own administrative systems there. limited parts are under foreign control but they cannot flee to get out of them. he foreign forces are so scared, they are confined to their bases. >> and according to you, the same is true in another province. >> broad swaths are under our control. >> in april, people will vote for a successor to president karzai that took over in 2001 when the taliban government collapsed. some want to link up with presidential candidates. the taliban leadership is dead set against that. >> whichever the foreigners want, it will happen. not legitimate and the candidates are not legitimate. people don't think it will lie with the taliban and. they have created the most extreme religio

and afghanistan didn't have the command over all of the american troops serving in afghanistan, and while i asked the chairman of the joint chiefs to try to fix at it was ultimately mauney responsibility and i took too long. i finally fixed it. that's just one example. >> to follow that you write that richard holbrooke, the special envoy and i think coral, the ambassador were working to the election campaign of harm to the co -- hamid karzai. you didn't seem happy about that. what happened? >> she may have his own shortcomings but he knows what is going on in the capitol, so the idea that we could do this and not know that we were trying to get rid of it was pretty nice in my view. when you see what he creates for us, his knowing that for all practical purposes in the summer of 2009 it probably didn't help the relationship. >> here is a statement on a flat out position paper. thank you for your commitment protecting the family. get well soon, god speed. [laughter] >> it is my understanding that the joint chair is responsible to the president. what a valuable input to do we lose when the c

afghanistan. he was instrumental in the capture of saddam hussein and the killing of abu mossad said cowie. his memoir has just been released in paperback. it comes iraq and when afghanistan are both facing renewed insurgencies. we want to talk about many things including where you are today and where you are going forward, but also look back at where you have some advantage of experience and insight. afghanistan. where are we, in your judgment, on the ground there as they troops by leave most 2014, and maybe all? >> i think that militarily or security wise there have been a lot of gains made, and those gains are shown on the ground in the relative life of the people. i think in terms of government, .here have then big problems internal to the afghan government, there has been a real difficulty in getting local governments adequate, local, competent administration, technocrats down to low levels, which builds the confidence of the people. at the national level, there has been a real problem with t

a democracy in afghanistan.merican national security. >> great point. >> another side of this when it comes to hillary that matters not what we think. it's what our enemies and frankly, allies think of us if we have a president willing to put their finger in the wind to do what is political expedient how do we from a foreign policy point of view deal with enemies like iran and north korea? they deal rise they're dealing with hillary clinton. our perspective like dealing with radical islam is that we have to recognize the culture not apply our values and our american way of thinking to dealing with an enemy. they think differently than we do. that is one of the reasons. >> have you to recognize that truth. >> but we dmot when we have a secretary of state... >> the president there bragging they rolled us we surrendered? >> i will come back. we'll have more closing thoughts as we continue with our studio audience their reaction to secretary gates' tell all memoir as "hannity" continues. open to ambition. open to bo

afghanistan faces a looming threat of a. washington wrangle over a proposed security deal to end the thirteen year war. this is not international live from our studio center here in moscow where it's just past nine pm and seven pm in ukraine where the president has signed the law that gives amnesty to all demonstrators detained during the riots in the country except those who committed serious crimes however for the amnesty to take effect the. blockade of streets and government buildings the protesters have been opposed to going to war demanding a full pardon without any preconditions spoke to political blogger alexander mccurry says any concession by the president will make little difference to the increasingly divided opposition. if we take the two mainstream parties the two the leaders of the leaders of those bodies mr yates and you can mystically they they have not been able to agree between them which of the two lead to the opposition of all who should be president it's quite clear that they don't control any of the peo

so i think bottom line we learn from iraq and afghanistan. it's not going to be hundreds of thousands of troops. but if we just turn away, we are going to suffer and therefore we need your support to help us do that. >> i can think -- i can think of five things, some of which i verity mentioned, but i'll take them off. one, honor the service of those who followed orders and went to iraq and afghanistan. 6000 died. they leave behind families. many came home with tens of thousands wounded. many came home in decent shape, honor their service. make sure we have in place a welcome my settings at all of the benefits they are entitled to, but hopefully at first to build good jobs for them. the unemployment rate among returning vets is disproportionate to the employment rate of others. second, gauge metal government approach to solve this problem. it discussed at length. i won't go into it again. third, continue counterterrorism mission it matches the greater middle east, but around the world. the u.s. has interests in other places around the country

role in afghanistan. he also talked about the situation in iraq, regarding al qaeda's influence in the region. what it could mean for u.s. combat troops. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am a reporter for bloomberg news and the president of the national press club. we are the world leading professional organization for journalists. we are committed to programming such as this, that foster free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website. to donate to programs offered to the public, please visit press.org\institute. on behalf of our members, i would like to welcome our speaker. our head speaker -- our head table includes guests of our speaker. i note that members of the general public are also attending. it is not a lack of journalistic objectivity if you care applause. i would also like to welcome our audiences. you can follow the action on twitter. now it is time to introduce our head table guests. i asked each of you to stand b

relationship in afghanistan. nd indeed, the collapse of our security agreement, which is the deal that would allow u.s. forces to stay in afghanistan after 2014. our assumption heading into the negotiations was that it would be obvious to the extent that they are kind enough to devote any troops to stay, they would jump on that and not miss the deal. and we have found ourselves perplexed that president karzai has refused to sign the deal and making up a variety of conditions, some of which cannot be satisfied and is himself turning by loss of the security agreement is what he believes is leverage on his part. to go back to your question, 10,000 troops make the difference, i would say yes. see where we are in the security situation in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have made great strides. they are far morrow bus, far more competent than they were a year ago. they had -- they are now providing security in afghanistan on their own for about half a year. the taliban over the past several months launched a i

i think that in the case of afghanistan, there are a numer of things that work here. first i think the -- many of the afghan people are trying to come to grips with what they think is eminent abandonment and i think many of them are trying to steel themselves that we are going to leave so they are emotionally and physically prepared. >> rose: because it happened before. >> correct. i think president karzai, and i certainly wouldn't presume to do a psychological study but i think if you see his relationship with the united states, it is under premised on practical things he doesn't want to be portrayed as a pup competent. >> rose: as washington's man. >> that's right. he also thinks that in the future, afghanistan he is going to have to be very independent and therefore not have to dance to our fiddle. on the other hand, he is also had enough of a painful relationship where over what is thousand many years, this is from 2001, it is a long tt&t to operate out of a palace where it is very difficult for him to travel. it is a long time to be going through this endless cyc

ambassador to syria iraq and afghanistan ron crocker agreed that assad is not as bad as the jihad is russia's foreign minister sergey lavrov welcomed the change of stance but in ankara there is no change with its turkish foreign ministry still insisting assad must go but expert in middle east history and politics jeremy salt says the rise of al-qaeda groups is a much bigger threat to turkey itself. state of of of iraq of the levant has already threatened to carry out suicide bombs inside turkey and in fact carried out one bombing last may in the border town of right hardly able to more than fifty people so this is a very dangerous group to be a part of moralist describing his evil but the ground is changing very rapidly in syria and we know what's going on now is that the united states and allies need to go to geneva with a credible syrian opposition that the most they don't have because the syrian the free syrian army is not credible the syrian national coalition has most support inside syria is of a sturdy and had taken a toll on the public's confidence in the european union with l

my concern with the president on afghanistan fell into two buckets. the first was his suspicion of the motives of some of his senior military leaders. he clearly believed and so did everybody else in the white house, that the military leadership was trying to box him in and force him to make a significant additional commitment of troops in afghanistan, and as i write, and there was cause for him to be suspicious. in september -- >> rose: he had reason to be suspicious? >> yeah, because in september of 2009, admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs was up for reconfirmation and in his confirmation hearings strongly supported a significant addition of troops in afghanistan, about a week later, general mcchrystal, the commander in afghanistan, his assessment of where we stood in afghanistan leaped, basically saying if there wasn't a significant increase in troops, there would be mission failure. >> rose: let me stop. do you believe that general mcchrystal leaked that memo? >> i don't believe, first of all, i don't know, but i don't believe genera

afghanistan's security deal with the u.s. is unlikely to be signed before in presidential elections according to you and american making them the diplomatic deadlock has severely strained relations and washington has threatened to a total pull out of afghanistan if the deal isn't signed soon as get more on this with afghan m.p. and presidential hopeful adel decile tuns i thank you for joining us here on our team to nationals that if the threat of a total u.s. pullout realistic. i think yes it is. the united states has to comply to the public opinion that is prevailing in that country and i think there's a possibility that the u.s. may have to do what the people of the united states want and that is a total pullout if if the u.s. government doesn't have a long term strategic. vision about afghanistan about terrorism then i'm sure this will be a very very real possibility and do you think that the afghan security forces can take charge of security themselves if that pullout does happen. when the pullout if the pullout happens a