about major shift in strategy in afghanistan. missy ryan, walk us through this what it is saying about how many troops could end up in afghanistan. sure.: the trump white house completed a strategic review of u.s. olicy toward afghanistan, that is normal at the beginning of any new administration to take another look at the approach to the war. it is america's longest war at this stage, and eally the objective was to see what the united states could be doing differently. security ion, the situation in afghanistan is really very precarious right back he taliban has come with a vengeance, they have taken more territory and -- than they have any time in recent years and really challenged the afhgan overnment and forces. the idea was to see what can the united states be doing differently. of this review, the white house, the top national ecurity advisors have come up with series of recommendations that would expand military pressure on the taliban and sort of reopen the american military in a against the taliban that hasn't happened

that's what the team has been doing, not just in afghanistan, but the total beyond afghanistan is also the way he asked them to look at the threat that isis poses. >> will he explain this to the american people? >> i don't want to get in front of -- i don't know how he's going to do that. we'll wait and see and go from there. john? >> question about the president's policy concerning syria. this morning we learned from the pentagon that the president plans to directly arm syrian kurds against isis. has the president discussed this plan with the leader of turkey? and what was the reaction from turkey? >> i don't know if he's addressed this to the president yet. i do know that yesterday the president authorized the department of defense to equip kurdish elements of the syrian democratic forces as necessary to ensure a clear victory over isis in raqa syria. the fdf partnered with enabling forces are the only force on the ground that successfully seized raqa in the near future. we're keenly aware of the security concerns of our partners in turkey. we want to reassure the people and governme

only growth industry in afghanistan. 'm not saying give up on counter narcotics because eneral nicholson says 60% of funding for the taliban comes to narcotics, we have address it better. we are buying equipment the afghans probably don't need. paying for schools that the afghans don't control, the districts, rols the why are we doing that? we're paying for clinics where doctors, no running water, no electricity, why are we funding program? what we're saying, administration has to do a real whatlook at what works and doesn't. sar.mill, is where you can find this information. you will ask questions of him. lines, our first is ron from california, republican line. you're on. caller: thanks, pedro. john sopko, the afghan situation is probably one of the most complex in the entire world. we had the northern borders that opium and poppy ontrol up there being handled by very corrupt forces and those eople, i don't know how we're addressing that military, but on have the side, you dunes area, if you recall, the duran line separ

strategy in afghanistan.considering new options, including sending in thousands of u.s. troops to take out the taliban. no final call has been made, but the consequential decision could come soon. >>> plus, president trump hits back following new revelations on what brought down michael flynn. the former acting attorney general in dramatic testimony says flynn's lies made him vulnerable to blackmail by russia. >>> and nbc news first to report it was the trump administration's second warning about flynn. >>> also ahead, former president obama's return to the global stage this morning. warning the world about the impact of climate change. what he is saying about president trump's policies on that issue and life after the white house. we'll have a live report from milan, italy. >>> good morning, everyone. i'm chris jansing in

then he said, on the way home, i want you to come through afghanistan.t is not exactly the direct line between two points. we did an assessment over there on the way home. david: president obama calls you into the oval office and says i would like you to give up central command and be a military commander in afghanistan. what did you think about that? mr. petraeus: if the president calls on you to do something, i think you do it. david: you didn't say, let me think about it? mr. petraeus: no. ♪ david: you've finished your second tour of duty in iraq. he went back to the united states. mr. petraeus: then we had about 15 months at work leavenworth, kansas. there are a number of different hats and individual wears. you control the army's doctrine. it is a next ordinary command. extraordinary an command. we really revamped the whole process of preparing units, soldiers, and their leaders to go to iraq and afghanistan. we did the counterinsurgency field manual. david: you wrote a very good report. you oversaw the counterinsurgency manual. it was so good that

they are guarding the opie and fields in afghanistan -- the opium fields in afghanistan and now we havehis epidemic in our country. i think back to the iran contra e froml, trading cocain machine guns in south america. we have the savings alone scandal and -- saving some alone scandal.- solone can you explain this nonsense as far as i have commented on? what i feel good commenting on is the expense of the afghanistan war. that is something i have covered closely for years. hasorganization has -- deployed reporters going back to the search a number of times. a financial toll is in the hundreds of billions of dollars -- the financial toll is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. you and others are asking has it all been worth it? what you are going to see on capitol hill is pretty intense and heated discussion about whether or not it makes sense to continue to invest so heavily in ,erms of military commitment deploying troops into harm's way and the sizable investment. right now in

it said afghanistan does not equal a iraq.o, there was not going to be a prospect of a dramatic improvement, but our mission in that year which we did accomplish, it was to halt the momentum of the taliban, because they were on the march to reverse it and some key areas, to accelerate the development and stability in afghanistan so we we could begin transition of some tasks, which we did all while achieving the overarching goal, which is still a valid and important mission for the united states in afghanistan. that is to ensure that afghanistan is never again a sanctuary for transnational extremists the way it was when al qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks there and conducted the initial training there. david: you briefed president bush, 43 and many times president obama. if they were taking sat tests, who would do better? [laughter] general petraeus: i don't grade the presidents that i serve. david: and who was a better athlete? did you ever exercise with any of them? general petraeus: president bush. he could talk trash. he said

troops to afghanistan. we will go to couple --kabul after headlines. president trump escalated his feud with german chancellor angela merkel on tuesday, taking to twitter to threaten germany over trade and nato. trump tweeted -- "we have a massive trade deficit with germany, plus they pay far less than they should on nato & military. very bad for u.s. this will change." trump's complaints comes after chancellor merkel called her meetings with trump at the g7 summit over the weekend disappointing and said europe had to take its fate in its own hands. european allies have expressed particular frustration over trump's refusal to commit the united states to fulfilling its pledges to the landmark 2015 paris climate accord. "the new york times" reports trump's inner circle is fiercely divided on the paris climate accord, with chief strategist steve bannon and epa administrator scott pruitt demanding trump withdraw from the accord, while secretary of state rex tillerson and trump's daughter and adviser ivanka trum

troops to afghanistan going back on a previous position that we should "leave afghanistan immediately." also this afternoon, blame game. the president taking to twitter to deflect attention from sally yates' testimony about trump ties to russia. and bubble burst, former president obama sharing a long list of things he does not miss about the presidency, including living in what he calls the bubble. but let's start with president trump and afghanistan. thousands more troops potentially headed for a combat role in america's longest war. one of the big revelations of this plan being formulated, more power for the generals to determine troops levels. let's head immediate ly to the white house with hallie jackson, analysis with dana milbank and george will. hans, let me start with you. tell us about the plan and how it differs from president obama's strategy. >> it's namely a directional shift. obama clearly was winding down the war. he wanted to end up with around 8,400 troops. that's how many are there, now there's an indication that it will be winding up. it's not a drastic increase. he

troops to afghanistan, america's longest war. that comes amid a recent surge in fighting between taliban and security forces. earlier, the white house press secretary laid out american objectives in the country. mr. spicer: the main objective of us being in afghanistan, being used as a safe haven for terrorists who attacked the united states and our allies, that is the main objective. we remain committed to the defeat of al qaeda and the isis affiliate there in afghanistan. that is, simply put, what the mission is going forward. tim: for more on the possible troop escalation, i spoke earlier to a man who served as the afghan ambassador to france and canada. under president obama, there was a maximum 100,000 in the surge. what difference will 3000 make? >> if you call this a mini-surge, it is supposed to send a few messages, some political, some tactical from the military perspective. trying to tellis the afghans that the united states is still serious about afghanistan and is not walking away and it wants to see some type of endi

about whatever isis component is in afghanistan or the larger, more malignant issue in afghanistan which has always been the taliban? >> right. as you know, there are multiple missions going on to confront those multiple things. the u.s. currently has about 8400 forces in afghanistan doing a counter terrorism operation which is operation freedom sentinel and then the nato mission which is to train, advise and assist under operation resolute support. the main objective of us being in afghanistan from being used as a safe haven for terrorists who attack the united states and our allies, that's the maj objective. we remain very focused on the defeat of al qaeda, its associates as well as the defeat of isis affiliate in afghanistan. but that's simply put what the mission is going forward. >> reporter: when you suggest it's a washington question to ask if 15,000 can do a better job than 100,000, are you suggesting the ideas theme president is being presented with are so original, so outside the box that 15,000 troops can achieve what 100,000 deployed shortly after 9/11 cannot achieve? >> i'm

so, let's talk about afghanistan. i know we have seen a lot of high-profile military strategy and implementation in that country and in the region. but what are the potential political and diplomatic solutions. particularly bringing the taliban to the table. >> we have been there since the 2001 september 11 attacks and a lot of things have gone wrong there. but the net net is we are still threatened by the country being taken over by taliban in combination with al qaeda in combination with isis. and that poses a direct threat to the united states in two respects. once again establishing an international base, a haven for terrorist activities, plans and training against the united states, and two the risk that a terrorist-led afghanistan to facilitate the fall of the pakistani government, to the pakistani taliban or other radicals which would put terrorists in command of the nuclear arsenal of 60 or more nuclear weapons by public estimate. it's a two-fold threat, it's a real threat. kennedy: if we are going to talk abo

is the united states about to up the ante in afghanistan. we'll see if sean spicer comments on that, too, at today's briefing. >>> our team is here. nbc's peter alexander is at the white house. peter, i know you are standing by waiting for that briefing to begin. what do we expect sean spicer to address? >> well, we think among topics addressed today is the issue of michael flynn following the former acting attorney general sally yates after testimony before the subcommittee yesterday. what's notable is 18 days passed between the warning from sally yates to the whi hse council and president actually firing his national security advisor. yesterdabefore the testimony began, sean spicer, press secretary here said simply he was not going to relitigate that issue, one he addressed many weeks ago. now with new information from the former department of justice official we'll certainly be peppering him with more questions about that. also, more importantly, this white house considering the addition of as many as $3,000 american troops heading to the

in addition to the over 8000 troops already in afghanistan.f a bigger nato force, at 13,000. the bbc also understands nato is asking the uk to send more troops. if you have been watching outside source from you know fighting in afghanistan has intensified. last month 413 people in a compound in the north. the taliban militants, in the north. the taliban militants, in the north, the taliban wants to take cities there. hundreds of thousands of families of to leave their homes. the security pressure is very much real. the americans and their response is intriguing. let's speak to gary o'donoghue. why have the americans change their mind? they're getting a stark message from commanders on the ground. general nicholson saying earlier this year effectively there is a stalemate in afghanistan between the afghan forces and the taliban. that he needed several thousand more troops to train, advise and assist the 350,000 strong afghan army, to push the taliban back. it has about one third of the country, controlling directly, or has significant influence

afghanistan helped defeat the taliban and al qaeda.nd it could join with us in the fight against isis. i would hope they would agree to that. kennedy: doesn't it seem a little bit late considering how far along some countries are in this fight? what would it take for nato to effectively come together and do something the united states cannot do alone. john: it would require leadership. that's one west problems the trump administration faces after 8 years of a vacuum under president obama. perhaps this meeting the president is attending can be a useful start. kennedy: we talked about some questionable alliances around the globe. saudi arabia, there are a lot of people, and some liberty-minded republicans who have questions and issues with the saudi arms deal. what do you say to people like rand paul who put forth legislation condemning that sale without congressional approval? john: it's not untypical to have a congressional vote on an arms sale of that size. i'm a liberty-loving republican and i hope the saudis put these weapons to goo

strategy in afghanistan. the president considering new options, including sending in thousands of u.s. troops to take out the taliban. no final call has been made, but the consequential decision could come soon. >>> plus, president trump hits back following new revelations on what brought down michael flynn. the former acting attorney general in dramatic testimony says flynn's lies made him vulnerable to blackmail by russia. >>> and nbc news first to report it was the trump administration's second warning about flynn. >>> also ahead, former president obama's return to the global stage this morning. warning the world about the impact of climate change. what he is saying about president trump's policies on that issue and life after the white house. we'll have a live report from milan, italy. >>> good morning, everyone. i'm chris jansing in washington, d.c. we begin with that incredibly important decision facing donald trump. should he okay a major u.s. troop buildup in afghanistan? the recommendation is from hi

strategy in afghanistan. might that result in a u.s. troop surge?about what's next for america's longest war. >>> and does fbi director james comey need to correct the record? all these new questions emerging about the accuracy in part of his congressional testimony and what the fbi plans to do about it. n one thing. more than one flavor, or texture, or color. a good clean salad is so much more than green. and with panera catering, more for your event. panera. food as it should be. nice tells you what you kind want to hear.ifferent... but kind is honest. this bar is made with cranberries and almonds. so, guess what? we call it cranberry almond. give kind a try. the shlike a bald penguin. how do i look? [ laughing ] show me the billboard music awards. show me top artist. show me the top hot 100 artist. they give awards for being hot and 100 years old? we'll take 2! [ laughing ] xfinity x1 gives you exclusive access to the best of the billboard music awards just by using your voice. the billboard music awards. sunday, may 21st eight seven central only

pakistan use afghanistan, desires afghanistan some of the same things we want. safe, secure, stable afghanistan. but one addition. one that does not have heavy indian influence in afghanistan. they view all of those challenges to the length of an indian threat to that the state of pakistan. they hold in reserve terrorist organization, we defined terrorist organization, the hold them in reserve so that if afghanistan leans toward india, they will no longer be supportive of an idea of a stable and secure afghanistan that could undermine pakistan interests. we have to get a couple of things. one, very clear that afghanistan security and stability is in the interest of all the parties in the region and does not pose a threat to pakistan. we got to convince pakistan that if there harboring any network members that it is not in their interest to continue to host the network and that we ought to be working together to go after those 20 terrorist organizations that undermine, the whole region. we have to make sure to push them to do more against the network. they separa

and likely, in afghanistan, we have wild pistachio. we have hoards of pistachio, so trying to see how we can become a main exporter. we have a project with uc davis, washington state, texas a&m together, that they are working with extension programs in afghanistan. their extension officers are working out with the ministry. so they will be the key partner of us to let them know how we can adopt some of those technology. at the same time, we'll be sending some of our students, our government employee, to learn and work in these research stations. our researcher will come here to learn the new technology -- at the same time, to see how we can adopt it to the context of afghanistan, where we are suffering from the lack of electricity, other issues. >> i think so many people have an image of afghanistan as a violent place where the only thing that's grown are poppies and the drug trade. >> people are engaged -- they have a life out there. they go to school, our girls going to school. our kids are going to school. we have hospitals, we -- a

al qaeda has been unable to amount attacks out of afghanistan >> reporter: decision on afghanistan is pitting president trump against candidate trump. >> what i do is i authorize my military. we have the greatest military in the world. >> reporter: before winning the white house, mr. trump spoke out forcefully against doubling down on america's longest war. four years ago he argued on twitter we should leave afghanistan immediately. no mar wasted lives. if we have to go back in, we go in hard and quick, rebuild the u.s. first. on the campaign trail he said this. >> we are going to end the era of nation-building, and instead focus on destroying, destroying, destroying isis and radical islamic terrorism. >> reporter: white house press secretary sean spicer said today there was no contradiction. >> the one thing that there's a difference between afghanistan proper and our effort to defeat isis, and that's one thing that he is also very clear on in the campaign, that -- and as president, that he is going to do everything he can to fight radical islamic terrorism, to root out and destroy i

, stable afghanistan. one addition, one that does not have heavy indian influence in afghanistan. they view all of the challenges through the lens of an indian threat to the state of pakistan. so they hold in reserve terrorist organizations. as we defined terrorist organizations. they hold them in reserve so that if afghanistan leans towards india, they will no longer be supportive of an idea of a stable and secure afghanistan that could undermine pakistan interests. so we have to get a couple of things. one, very clear that afghanistan's security and stability is in the interest of all of the parties in the region and does not pose a threat to pakistan. we have got to convince pakistan that if they are harboring any of the network members, that it is not in their interest to continue to host that network. that we ought to be working together to go after this 20 terrorist organizations that undermine not just afghanistan, not just pakistan, but all of the region. we have to make sure we are pushing them to

why will more troops actually matter in afghanistan this time?> what i've been concerned about is in the past we put troops up and reduced them. connell: right. >> and that's been the problem. we haven't had a persistent troop level. we should also ask for more assets for nato to support the afghan security forces and developing and training them. yeah, it's reasonable for people to say that. so that's why i think we want to see a comprehensive review and a comprehensive strategy that addresses all of these issues. why is this different now? i do think, like i said, it has the possibility. we can beat the taliban if we have enough assets there with afghan partners and nato partners but have to keep the pressure on, we can't keep putting pressure on and letting it off, putting pressure on and letting it off, also we have to have a more focused relationship with pakistan on this issue because otherwise, you have real problems. connell: pakistan is the key. peter brookes, appreciate your analysis. >> thanks for having me. >> the heat map that we tra

troops operating in afghanistan. >> that's a good starting point. let's remind everyone about the situation. i will show you a map from the "wall street journal." it shows what the situation is now. let's put that map up and i will refer to the various parts in it. i can't ta about itnless we have it up. look at the map. the shades of purple determine how much the taliban controls things. dark purple is where they have more complete control. in the province at the bottom, the taliban controls almost all of it. the lighter is influence or developing influence. as chris said, there are 8400 u.s. troops in afghanistan and on top of that, about 5,000 nato forces. now the reports as chris reported is there could be another 3,000 more american troops on the way. this is the longest war in american history. kids in high school were not alive when this war started. 2200 american soldiers died in that time and 20,000 injured. what are you hearing about this? >> i'm hearing that secretary mattis has not made his formal recommendations on the policy review to

at shouldn't president trump more troops in afghanistan -- add more trumps in afghanistan? andaid we were too involved campaign oed on that. he is sending a very different message. press sec. spicer: there's a difference between afghanistan proper and our efforts to defeat isis. that's one thing he is also very clear on in the campaign and as president that he will do everything he can to fight radical islamic terrorism. afghanistan, they are not always the same -- the goal is always going to be to defeat isis. said, let's be clear, with the exception of the peace that theced today president of the riser survey, no decision has been made. let's not get ahead of what that ultimate policy will be. >> new give us a better sense of what the president has been doing with his time the last few days? we've only had one or two meetings. press sec. spicer: as i said at the top of the president is trip to a nine-day saudi arabia, israel, rome, the g7, nato -- he will have the crown prince here. part of the use of this week is to be meeting with the principles and heads and directorat

laura: the united states could be about to send more troops to afghanistan.ior military leaders want to send at least 3000 troops as the 16-year war with the taliban rhines on with shockingly high casualties for the afghan army. >> afghan security forces are struggling to contain the taliban. insurgents killed more than 130 soldiers last month at an army base in northern afghanistan. the militant group had been ousted from power by the there hasnvasion, but been a recent upsurge in its activities. last month, america's top commander in afghanistan said nato forces were facing a stalemate and needed more resources to fight jihadists. the united states official combat role in the country ended in december of 2014. >> america's combat mission will be over by the end of this year. but nearly three years on, 8400 u.s. troops remain in the , conducting counterterrorism missions and providing support and training to afghan soldiers. last month, american soldiers took over command in helmand province as the u.s. defense secretary announced that the trump administrati

trish: you got syria, you got afghanistan and committing the resources to afghanistan first?me say a couple things first. it's an absolute disgrace we've been in afghanistan for 16 years and at a stage now where the war is not winnable. that's largely driven by two presidents' policies, one president bush, prioritized iraq over afghanistan and afghanistan for five years. president obama realized he had to do something about the situation. he did the afghan surge that petraeus and mcchrystal were recommending but 25% less forces to accomplish the mission and pulled them out after 15 months. at that point, this is 2011, afghanistan was doomed to the protracted state it is now. so president trump, when he says he's got a mess here, does. what's he going do? one, he could pull away and get another situation like we have in iraq, a breeding ground for radical islamists. trish: don't want that. >> two, leave the status quo, protracted war. trish: don't want that. >> so three, we got to do something decisive to turn it around in the afghan and security forces to get a political solu

after the events of 9/11/2001, she returned to afghanistan with a mission to find ways to economically empower the women of her native country. she is the founder of kandahar treasure, an enterprise employing over 450 women who embroider garments and housewares for the domestic and international market. rangina: i came here as a nonprofit worker, and the bureaucracies, the politics, the lack of a real vision forward really disappointed me. and so i thought that the alternative to this mess was business, because business offered sustainability and business gives an opportunity for people to rebuild their own lives with their own hands. i saw my country in the past 30 years of war, we are constantly waiting to be spoonfed by the world. so my answer to this dissatisfaction was start a business that i can own, but with a sustainable model, i know that in the future we can stand on our own two feet and not depend on the world to provide for us. i prefer business over charity because doing business gives me integrity. kandahar treasure respects that women in kandahar live in a very strict, t

the taliban now control roughly one-third of afghanistan. more than at any time since 2001 when the war began. >> and this is. >> reporter: earlier this year america's top commander in afghanistan john nik solon-- nicholson told the armed forces committee the war was stalled. >> are we winning or losing 6789. >> mr. chairman, i believe we're in a stalemate. >> reporter: 16 years in, the afghan war is costing america more than $3 billion a month. back in 2014 the u.s. military was on its way out, handing afghanistan security over to the afghans. u.s. troop strength which had peaked at 98,000 in 20-- 210 plummeted to $8,400. but now the pentagon wants to reverse that. it asked to add 3 to 5,000 more personnel. and for authorizization to send u.s. forces closer to the front lines, to back up afghan soldiers who are often overwhelmed by the taliban and dying in the thousands. here in brussels the u.s. has been trying to talk its nato allies into adding thousands more troops in afghanistan as well. but so far the reception has been cool. and as f

afghanistan has gone through a lot over the years. in the past year or two, it has seen a lot of spectacular attacks by terrorist groups, sometimes daesh or isis claims responsibility, and there are times when the taliban, or some taliban offshoots, claim responsibility. laura: in this case, afghan intelligence is suggesting is the work of a group linked to pakistan. what do you think of that? >> i think this is a credible assessment. if you look at the manner under which this was carried out, the signs of their footprint is not there. i believe they, who are affiliated closely to the linked to pakistani security establishment, they wanted to send a message. this message comes at a time that is very critical. thehe one hand you have u.s.-nato politicians who are going to decide on the fate of the afghan mission. laura: can we know that u.s. generals have said they want 3000 to 5000 troops. would that make a difference, especially if this is a work of that network? does that change the equation? >> from the afghan perspective, yes. the

as you look at afghanistan, how would you describe to our viewers where afghanistan states and the list of priorities that the united states are confronting? >> first of all, we have to say that this is a very difficult problem, so no one should be under any illusion that this is going to have easy answers. if we had a chance to have easy answers to fix this problem, it would have been fixed a long time ago. with that being said, we have to understand that a military surge is not going to work unless we have a diplomatic surge. in order for the military to be successful, we have to have diplomats who understand the strategy, have a very specific plan of action, and they have two surge as well. we have to have a diplomatic surge at the same time. the military is ready. the military is always ready and i think second mattis is showing us that they are ready to move in and do what needs to be done. all the ideas we have implemented from a diplomatic standpoint and afghanistan have failed. we need to be honest about that. we run out of ideas at the state department. we don't have the leader

on the other hand, we're dealing with afghanistan. let me play a little clip. this is the secretary of defense james mattis. he was in denmark today meeting with some of the nato allies. listen to this. >> in afghanistan we're up against a determined enemy. as i said, isis has been thrown back there. al qaeda have been unable to amount attacks out of afghanistan. the government under the president and cheief executive are committed to working with their responsible citizens and there lies the path forward. when a government earns the respect and support of their people, then no enemy can stand against them. >> i want to get your response to that. what do you think? >> that's a responsible statement. that's what he ought to say. i think he believes that. if there is a possibility that that will occur, then, in fact, we ought to try. >> it's a fair statement indeed. unfortunately, we've heard those kinds of statements from u.s. defense secretaries, u.s. secretaries of state, and u.s. presidents now for almost 16 years going back to the

troops back to afghanistan.r would depend on how many troops nato allies contribute. the increase was requested by general john nicholson, a top commander in afghanistan who says he needs more trainers and advisers for the afghan army. the plan, which has not yet been presented to president trump for a decision would allow american advisers to operate closer to the front lines and give them greater authority to call in airstrikes against the taliban, an enemy which can still carry out attacks like this one last month on an afghan military base that left 140 dead. general nicholson has estimated it would take two to three years to regain an advantage over the taliban. the goal is not to defeat the taliban but to convince them they cannot win and are better off seeking a negotiated end to the war. as joint chiefs chairman general dunford explained to cbs news radio, it comes down to which side cracks first. >> we can be tired, but war is a clash of wills, right? so who wins, who loses? who loses is whose will is l

rob: army specialist gave life in afghanistan when he was just 26 year's old.p, his wife joining us with a special message about what honoring the fallen means to those who are fighting abroad right now. what if technology gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin. rob: welcome back, illegal immigrants attending ivy league school now requesting health care, posting a list of demands on facebook page in addition to health care they also want sensitivity training for all staff members guarantied housing and fund raise to go create scholarships for other illegal immigrant students. no comment yet from the university. baltimore could be the next american city to remove confederate statutes, the mayor weighing idea to

we cannot allow the gains we've made in afghanistan to fall by the wayside. we know all too well what can happen when radical, oppressive ideologies are allowed to fester in hostile nations. make no mistake, because freedom and fairness for afghan women is essential to the security of our nation it is also crucial to our own. that's why i'm pleased that president trump is reviewing our strategy in afghanistan, including a re-evaluation of troop levels and our rules of engagement. . if we're going to be in afghanistan we need to do what it takes to succeed. the afghan people must take the raines -- rains -- reins of their country's future. right now i fear we have tied the hand of our military through reduced force strength and limited rules of engagement. we should never send our military men and women into harm's way without the tools and resources they need to get the job done. re-evaluating our force strength and rules of engagement is the right decision and i look forward to hearing from president trump and secretary mattis as the nato summit approaches.

the war in afghanistan is now the longest in american history. it's been almost 17 years since the united states invaded in retaliation for the september 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al qaeda, the terrorist group harbored at the time by the taliban-led government. to date, 2,396 american military personnel, along with 1,136 coalition soldiers have died in the war. so have an estimated 170- thousand fighters and civilians in afghanistan and pakistan. now, with the taliban having regained control of 40% of the country, the trump administration is contemplating a surge of 5,000 u.s. troops to add to the over 8,000 still there. joining me here to discuss this is barnett rubin, associate director of new york university's center on international cooperation. he previously worked in the obama state department. why 17 years out are we talking about our adversary controlling 40% of our country? >> we never defined what we had accomplished. we had a long list of goals which were exirg and killing terrorists. and we were never compactly clear where t

afghanistan. russia is likely to become a more assertive nation in global affairs, more unpredictable in its approach to the united states and more authoritarian in the approach to domestic politics. we assess that russia will continue to look to leverage the military support to the assad regime to drive a political settlement process in syria on russia's terms. moscow is also likely to use russia's military intervention in syria in conjunction with efforts to capitalize on fears of a growing isis and extremist threat and expand its role in the middle east. we also have noticed and discussed in significant detail and may do so during this session russia's influence campaign and strategies to undermine democratic institutions and interfere with elections. as i said, i just returned from europe. clearly, in france, in its election, now in germany with its pending election, in england with its pending election, we are seeing duplications of what has happened here in our election so the russian strate

troops be sent to afghanistan? >> bill: sally yates, james clapper answering questions on russian meddling. chuck grassley on what he learned after five hours of testimony. >> did anybody make a request to unmask between the russian ambassador and mr. flynn? >> again, senator, i can't answer a question like that. >> mr. clapper? >> i don't. >> is there a way to find that out? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sfx: engine revving ♪ (silence) ♪ >> the bottom line here is i want to know how it got to the "washington post". somebody had to have access to the information. and they gave it to the "washington post". is that a fair statement? >> that's right. that's what it looks like to me. >> is that right, general clapper? neither one of you did it? >> that's right. >> that's right. >> how many people can request unmasking of american citizens in our government. how many? >> i don't have an exact number. i think fairly limited because it's normally a fairly high-level officials. >> bill: that came right near the end of this hearing. former actin