questions in afghanistan. russian or other neighbors didn't well i know that they have begun to do something. it's a bit late it's quite late but we supported we need. a concerned voice we need questions to be raised with the someone to ask questions and to do something well you know as we say in russia better late than never but this latest efforts on on the part of russia to get more involved in the diplomatic talks surrounding afghanistan do receive certain pushback from the united states and the u.s. state department specifically says that this recent consultations organized by moscow seemed to be a unilateral russian attempt to assert influence in the region despite the fact that there were senior officials from a dozen countries present do you think the americans still fill in tie told to afghanistan as their sort of privileged zone of influence well they may feel that way but that's wrong nobody should feel intitled to a privileged position of afghanistan afghanistan as a country. at least thousands of

and afghanistan knows it. afghanistan has been fighting with each other time.long, long and those guys ain't going to don't cause they really care. i mean, they go out, they get care.they don't even they are going to keep fighting everything and how are you going to have a good if you just, they just keep doing it? host: mike, i will leave it there. mr. ambassador, as an afghan, how do you respond to his there?ts that afghan people don't care. guest: hurt. deeply hurt by that comment. sorry to say, this is not a human way of thinking about people. have families everyday, we mourn the death of our people killed across the country. we're fight thanksgiving war to not only the afghans have stability, but stability across the world. the afghan people's dream is no american than an dream. it is peace and stability, we just want to live at peace. visited dent, when he the united states in 2015, -- has said that escaped us and that is what we be able to live an ordinary life, we want to be walk on the streets without

let's remember that the afghanistan project or the afghanistan mission is notjust an american mission the ram, but europeans have a lot at stake. they have spent billions of dollars in afghanistan. the japanese, countries in asia, in europe, in other places, have all invested in afghanistan. and i think if, let's say, the americans stop supporting certain aspects of what is called nation—building, maybe others were picked up. and this is where i think american diplomacy can come in and help put a more comrades of strategy in place, beyond the american strategy. we have touched on the role of russia and iran in this. how unstable is the region at the moment, and if america was to withdraw at all, what sort of opening would russia and iran have? until a couple of years ago, in that pa rt until a couple of years ago, in that part of the world, the taliban and their affiliates, and before that al qaeda while it was at the zenith of its power, were seen as the spoilers and destabilises and the bad guys. for the past two or three years we have seen the rise of what is called daesh or islami

afghanistan's a country. at least thousands of years old we have been around as a formidable country. we have shown our our our our our strength in our mental. already in iran creating to add to the soviet union included to the to to to to britain three times included and americans should recognize that as where our poverty is should not be seen as a request by the americans and they should allow afghanistan to be a place of cooperation here i would ask the russia the russia the same thing that their intention should focus on returning afghanistan to a competent of environment and to a movement to peace well the present this is part of a larger problem of conflict resolution is the fact that it's seen as a competitive felt for him to gain or lose influence rather than solve problems you've seen so many futile talks what makes you believe want to stay in your believe in it in the. south fullness of any negotiations especially given that those countries that are involved in those negotiations they haven't resol

preventing the taliban from taking over afghanistan.d global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. we are confident they will. since taking office, i have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defence, and they have done so. in this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. as the prime minister of afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us. afghanistan is fighting to defend a secure their country against the same enemies that threaten us. the stronger the afg ha n that threaten us. the stronger the afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do. afghanistan will secure and build its own nation, and define its own future. we wa nt nation, and define its own future. we want them to succeed. but we will no longer use american military might to construct d

did in iraq to afghanistan. it is basically more of the same. >> we had as many as 140,000 troops in country, 100,000 americans and 40,000 nato troops and that did not work. americans have the watches, but we have the time. we have to do a sustainable, cheap, long-term strategy, that helps keep unrelenting pressure on those terrorist elements. to what toroclivity to--s, brush in -- once urge, it is a false presumption because the enemy just ducks and covers. they have the time. >> with your organization, or organizations benefit from this? if there's a chance to do some of this work, we would certainly have a go at it. folks at they white house, after i wrote in the wall street journal, to elaborate on the op-ed and ended up making a detailed analysis of what the budget would take. iey wanted a comparison, and can honestly and clearly say, this program would cost less than my plan includes everything on the budget remaining there to keep active duty some guys and this contracted these would provide mentors at th

let afghanistan take care of afghanistan.ost: the you feel the same way with obama's management of afghanistan? host: i don't know caller: -- caller: i don't know why we couldn't have president obama for more years. host: off of twitter -- we're on track to spend 6 million -- $6 trillion. if you and see all the things he said about afghanistan, go to our c-span library and see those for yourself. let's hear from michael in florida. republican line. caller: good morning. i have to agree with staying in afghanistan. we are starting -- we started out wrong. we're fighting vietnam pete we have a -- vietnam. we have an arbitrary line. if we don't go in there and clean them outcome of this war will never end. pakistanant a war with but we need to go to those mountains could we're losing people over that area because stupid decisions are made by civilians who don't listen to the military. this has happened over again. we've got to stop fighting arbitrary lines because we lose people people we cannot win wars. you have to go in and c

troops currently deployed in afghanistan. in tonight's primetime address, the president is expected to announce plans to send another 4,000 troops to the country. after a lengthy policy review within his administration over how to move forward in the nation's longest running war, the plans were finalized with the president's top advisors at camp david over the weekend. >>> we want to take you back live to arlington, virginia where the president is preparing to make his remarks. this is joint base meyer henderson hall. >> let's listen in now to president trump. >> secretary of state tillerson, members of the cabinet, general doneford, secretary shanahan and colonel duggan. most especially, thank you to the men and women of fort meyer and all at home and abroad. we send our thoughts and prayers with the families of sailors who were lost at sea, and thank all those in the search and recovery efforts. i am here tonight to lay out our path to afghanistan and south asia. but before i provide the details of our new strategy, i want

they are not mercenaries and not a private army operating in afghanistan, the are under the afghanistan chain of command and anduntable under the ucmj there to support the afghan military, what the u.s. army should be doing but for the last 16 years have yet organized that way. host: our guest is erik prince. nancy, democrat line, new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. as an older person, i am much older than erik prince, i am curious, you do not seem to operate under any laws. military,e afghan there was no central military or government in afghanistan before, there was always tribes. you are men were arrested for open fire in the square in iraq when civilians were killed. how did you get access to all of our treasury money to build your own mercenary army in afghanistan? i am appalled we would consider hiring mercenaries on behalf of the american government. we will never be done with terrorists as long as you continue to occupy afghanistan. it is unbelievable, 16 years later that we are pouring all this money in dick cheney lied through his teeth and you are a good frie

that is kind of what we need in the afghanistan effort. to keep -- let's -- do what we need to do to deny terrorists sanctuary, stabilize the afghan government, and figure out how to leave. that is, that is that is , america's goal. steve scully: erik prince joe is , next, charleston, south carolina. caller: good morning. let me give you a little background, erik. i used to work for the federal government and the dod. as a matter of fact i was involved in logistics and helped units areportable atc used to take over to the sands. i retired in 2007. anyway you are familiar with the a-76 circular, as a contractor. for the life of me, and don't think this wrong, i have always that the military should be an inherently government function. of course, steve, let me explain something. the government is not supposed to compete with the private sector if the private sector can do a job more efficiently and more effectively than the government. erik knows that. he is familiar with the appropriations. aside from the money thing and tactics and strateg

troops to afghanistan.m coming to you from washington tonight. and this is the story. since 9/11, the u.s. mission has been to never let it happen again. a war on terror under president bush gave way to president obama's ending of the iraq war and a focus on what he saw as the right war in afghanistan before pulling out there as well. two hours from now, the president will speak to the nation about the most solemn question that a commander-in-chief faces, the call to put more american lives at risk. it is his first prime

in afghanistan and pakistan, america's interests are clear.st stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten america. and we must prevent nuclear weapons and material from coming into the hands of terrorists and being used against us or anywhere in the world. for that matter. but to prosecute this war, we will learn from history as a result of our comprehensive review. american strategy in afghanistan and south asia will change dramatically in the following ways. a core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. i said it many times how counterproductive it is for the united states to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military operations. we will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. america's enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. i will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.

troops would draw down in afghanistan.ad president trump will use a conditions based approach. if that sounds familiar, that's because it's going back to the way that george w. bush talked about the wars that he started. george w. bush when he was president saying i'm not going to give you a date when we're going to end the war or leave iraq. when they stand up, we'll stand down. it was a conditioned based approach to tend of that war. that war, of course, did not end while burge w. bush was president and it does not ended today. but that is what president trump is talking about going back to. he also said a couple of times that he wants to use all elements of u.s. power, not just the military power in terms of moving forward in afghanistan. it should be noted i think when he says that the other elements of u.s. pow thaer are brought to bear in a situation like afghanistan include the state department which is understaffed and underpowered to an extent that has never been true in decades. also crucially in june the special

troops cannot leave afghanistan. those kind of vacuums lead to terrorist safe havens. >> the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. a hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum of terrorists including isis and al-qaeda would instantly fill just as happed before september 11. >> the mix of u.s. forces on the ground will not change in any dramatic way. the president did not announce u.s. troops would be replaced with contractors as had been discussed. what's different is the pace and scope of overall pressure on this campaign. already this year airstrikes are up 181%, 1,984 bombs have been dropped so far this year. remember just a few years ago the u.s. had 100,000 troops in afghanistan and the taliban didn't negotiate then. secretary mattis issued a statement from jordan where he's travelling calling on the chairman of the joint chiefs to implement the president's strategy. the president said it's not a blank check. right now the government of afghanistan only controls 60% of the country. >> j

simp regarding afghanistan. people have a hard time staying difference , the between good leadership and bad leadership. telling ership, not your enemy when you're going to leave and we know in the past had people telling the enemy when you're going to leave and they just wait for you. if is a big difference and people want to, you know, really mean, we havety, i good leadership right now. don't wantll, people to talk about afghanistan, all they want to do is give prop dpanda, all i'll say about that. host: from twitter, several comments saying regarding the speech, only good news, we won't se a private army, aside from that ambiguity. hat role will allies play in afghanistan and also a viewer saying the afghans don't nderstand democracy, we are wasting our time nation building, terror control is the cause. members reaction from of congress last night over the speech in afghanistan, both on twitter. house speaker paul ryan commenting on the afghan a town hall on cnn, here is what he had to say. i'm pleased with

war in afghanistan. the president breaking from his campaign rhetoric when he promised to pull out of afghanistan. that was the campaign rhetoric. now keeping with the america first theme, saying the days of nati nation-building are over. the strategy is light on sprisksprisk specifics. he doesn't want other countries to know his plans and says a hasty withdrawal is not an option. >> the vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for isis to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks. we cannot repeat in afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in iraq. >> the president signaled the u.s. would increase troop levels in afghanistan but did not offer numbers. mr. trump also put no end date on america's longest war by design. so how is the president's path to victory different from his predecessors'? athena jones with more on the president's speech from arlington, virginia. >> reporter: good morning. president trump laid out a new plan for u.s. efforts in afghanistan and south asia, emphasizing

i'm here to address policy in afghanistan and asia.efore i provide the details of our new strategy, i want to say a few words to service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts and to all americans listening at home. since the founding of our republic, our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selflessness, courage, and resolve is unmatched in human history. american patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. and thoughir lives their lives were cut short. in their deeds they achieved total immortality by following example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and remain one nation under god. the men and women of our military operate as one team with one shared mission, and one shared sense of purpose. every line of race, ethnicity, creed and color to serve together and sacrifice in absolutely perfect cohesion. that is because all service members our brot

we're there in afghanistan. we got in afghanistan. colonel, once you go in, i don't know how you get out because you run the risk you will see more terrorist events? >> you cover business, it is full of risk. iraq was utterly different. that was a tragedy. iraq was con velezing. iraq is strategic prize. obama did a horrible thing leaving. afghanistan is no strategic value what he sorry. our only concern should be terrorism. trish: talking to ben collins, who has been advising this president on afghanistan, his point it is absolutely strategic. where it sits is prime territory. you can't allow the terrorists to fester there because that is too risky in and of itself, colonel. >> what i would focus on is killing terrorists. afghanistan is of a concern to the chinese and russians and indians but everybody always said, you know, if we leave, we've got to go back. going back every 10 or 15 years and whacking them and leaving again is a lot cheaper than staying an trying to rebuild afghanistan in our image. trish: he said he is not doing th

troops in afghanistan. president also is expected to ask india and pakistan to shoulder more of the load in this terror fight. the president says he will not hold pakistan more accountable for the long-standing support of the taliban. let's check in quickly with the chief white house correspondent john roberts who is on the scene there in fort meyer. good evening, john. >> good evening, looking at the way things are shaping up here, as we wait for the president, it looks like it is l going to lauh a new era of an integrated regional policy, according to the state department. rex tillerson talk with the prime minister of pakistan, as well as the foreign ministers of afghanistan and india to talk about how the countries could work together on a broader regional strategy. the troops are going to be a piece of this. you talk about pakistan, trying to bring that taliban back to the table, because the attacks with qatar and the taliban incidents work out. the president trying to change that dynamic t tonight. >>

announcer: now the president's speech on afghanistan from last night. this is just under a half hour. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. ♪ pres. trump: thank you very much. thank you. please be seated. vice president pence, secretary of state tillerson, members of the cabinet, general dunford, deputy secretary shanahan, and colonel duggan. most especially, thank you to the men and women of fort myer and every member of the united states military at home and abroad. we send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who were injured and lost after a tragic collision at sea, as well as to those conducting the search and recovery efforts. i am here tonight to lay out our path forward in afghanistan and south asia. but before i provide the details of our new strategy, i want to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts, and to all americans listening at home. since the founding of our republic, our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selfles

policy in afghanistan secretary of defense james mattis has already announced a major decision has been made in regards to the administration administration policy rather in the country president trump is expected to speak at any moment in what many analysts are saying is the preface to a troop surge in afghanistan so joining me now to discuss all of this we have here with us michael maloof he's a former pentagon official in our correspondent simone del rosario so folks obviously we're waiting anxiously awaiting what president trump has to say about all of this he's due to come on at any moment in our earlier broadcast alone you reported that we are expecting obviously the troop surge can you talk to me about some of those numbers those are definitely the talks that are happening right now is that we will in fact see a troop surge and the reason for that is because as you mentioned secretary of defense jim mattis has already said that they expect a plan and he said he was very comfortable with the way that the strategic plan went and we know that the pentagon had asked for an additional

america's foreign-policy with afghanistan, india is putting money into afghanistan. india and china are at each other's throats greater now china is helping pakistan. got 300 troops bombed out of lebanon. what happened to that state? overthrew awer freely erected iranian government, that was it. our national resources are hours. america is not going to put up with that. some russian hacker but something on a guitar business -- cutter business. host: you're talking about a lot of places. let's go back to where you started, bringing india and pakistan to the table. guest: either regional powers have an important role to play in this. they're going to have to be involved in the discussions. that means iran as well. they are nuclear weapon states like israel and north korea. those are the four unofficial nuclear state in the world. we have to figure out how we're going to come to terms with that. to come into yet afghanistan with greater economic resources as a challenge to pakistan is not the way to building diplomatic solution. if we need diplomacy and not war in pakis

you know we're well over year 15 in afghanistan. this is not something the president planning to do some sort of other project. he wants to do this part of the war. under u.s. military ethics can the u.s. government go in with the protection of u.s. soldiers and extract the wealth of another country. >> we can we've done it before. there is no reason why we can't do it again. but the real question is what difference does that make in terms of achieving war objectives? if at the end of the day what we really want to do is to have a central government in kabul that can actually control afghanistan, the taliban is not a factor anymore. the people in afghanistan can defend themselves, the afghan army is at top condition. if that's what we are looking to do, then none of of the things that he said are actually going to contribute to that. including even to the point of building a -- a big wall an impen trabl wall between afghanistan and pakistan on the other, the real problem is actually inside pakistan and it includes a corrupt governme

afghanistan is very difficult. afghanistan is you have capital of kabul and a number of provinces that are broken down from tribes to subscribes, what they want most in localized area is they want peace, security and watch their kids go to school, food and some power. they want security. they wanted it in us, then from the africa afghan government, td not get it. like 80s, the whole reason call big ca--taliban came to bed them a way of life. neil: they change. >> you do have to -- understand that this, there is a separate. i am not one that advocates there is good taliban and bad taliban, however taliban itself, as an organization, has always been intraafghanistan this a markedly different ideology and thought process. neil: we're not interesting in toppling them. >> taliban will be a part of afghan society and that fabric of pashtuns. forever. but you ask the going back to mullah omar, who started taliban, they concerned themselves with afghanistan. talibans did not say let's go conquer the world. neil: is it your

in afghanistan tonight. and he is asking the nation to trust his leadership at a time when his competence and moral authority are in question, as well. how do you think he did tonight? >> i think he did a pretty good job overall tonight. look, i think it was difficult for him. there are people on the right, isolationist who's won't like what he had to say tonight. he said look, i thought as a candidate that maybe we just would abandon the entire enterprise in afghanistan. i think he realizes that for the u.s. after all these years, to be defeated on the battlefield by the taliban and by al qaeda is not a good idea. he doesn't want that to happen. he introduced several new ideas and he introduced a strategy. i'm not going to tell you it's the best strategy. it gives a lot more authority to his commanders in the field, on the battlefield. i think that's a good thing. i think a president shouldn't be sitting there with a map trying to figure out how to run these battles. among the things did he, for example, th

war and take the world to war against afghanistan in response and at that time afghanistan was the worst place in the world for a child to be born and expect to survive to her first birthday it was the worst place for a woman to give birth and survive sixteen years later sixteen years of u.s. military occupation u.s. military engagement intervention whatever you want to call it it is still according to all the stats the worst place in the world for a child to be born and survive to her first birthday it's slightly less than the bottom of the lists on women dying in childbirth because a few west african countries have really collapsed in recent years short of that afghanistan is right in there but for children it's as bad as it ever was this last six months of the trump administration's war in afghanistan there has been a sixty seven percent rise in the number of civilian casualties most of them children according to the un that sixty percent sixty seven percent more than last year at the same time which was more than the year before every year that the un has been collecting data on the

stories of afghanistan you know you remember when the afghan war began this version of the afghanistan war of course there have been earlier ones in the eighty's the u.s. was fighting the soviet union in afghanistan. in the ninety's there was a terrible civil war in afghanistan and this war began in two thousand and one right after nine eleven when george bush said that the response of the u.s. to this horrific crime would be to treat it as an act of war and take the world to war against afghanistan in response and at that time afghanistan was the worst place in the world for a child to be born and expect to survive to her first birthday it was the worst place for a woman to give birth and survive sixteen years later sixteen years of u.s. military occupation u.s. military engagement intervention whatever you want to call it it is still according to all the stats the worst place in the world for a child to be born and survive to her first birthday it's slightly less than the bottom of the lists on women dying in childbirth because a few west african countries have really collapsed in re

when we got involved in afghanistan and ramp up in afghanistan many national guard units went and took their equipment with them. they love that equipment behind. some of it was worn down or damaged. the worry for the future is to have the money to replace that equipment in the hands of the national guard? we looked at was going on in texas. the national guard is a lot of things at home, not just a broad. the issue is are they going to be fully equipped to do this in the future? guest: daisy is, from washington, d.c. free democrats. caller: good morning. you know what? the government is all messed up. they need to clean this up and stop blaming all these people. they need to either go to jail, get trump out. they need to go do something. they are the ones who messed up. host: with good as steve coming from chatsworth, illinois on the line for independents. all, -- when we went there with charlie wilson. and supply the telegram. -- and supply the taliban. heroine to fester. at another of its basically but --in our country, h, is a wasted war, wasted money, wasted human life. that we wen

country and afghanistan.an. we are minutes away from thahaha i'll never find a safe used car. country and afghanistan. we are minutes away from thahaha start at the new carfax.com show me minivans with no reported accidents. boom. love it. [struggles] show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new carfax.com. it's a highly contagious disease that can be really serious... especially for my precious new grandchild. it's whooping cough. every family member, including those around new babies, should talk to their doctor or pharmacist about getting vaccinated. >> this is fox business coverage of president trump's address to the nation, here is neil cavuto. neil: we're seconds away from hearing the commander in chief, second major address if you think about it. last one in january. this time he is going to make the argument we need more troops in afghanistan, up to 4,000 more. this, of course, heeding advice of all his top generals, saying this is the way to go about it. we have former state departme

what's the goal in afghanistan?should be important to the piece of that. >> to the extent it's going to be defined i think it's precisely as paul said it's just trying to lay low. this particular batch of sharia so they can attack us here at home. connell: i've got to go now but thank you gentlemen and move onto a big topic certainly for us at "fox business" and that's how the markets react to all of this regala politics and politics and all the geopolitics and everything else. next on wall street especially if the trump economic agenda that we talked about early taxes and all that stalls. what happens to the market? that's up next. finally. hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i

troops to afghanistan. that is in line with the tweets and commentary we saw from candidate trump during the campaign. and from citizen trump four years before that, with the president, as we expected to announce an increase in troops in afghanistan, it looks as though a hawkish argument won. but the president faces a challenge tonight in convincing his supporters that increasing engagement in afghanistan is the right move, considering he spent so long arguing for full withdrawal. >> athena jones, appreciate that. a second ago, in fact, the president expands the footprint in afghanistan, it will be a blow to the foreign policy that steve bannon supported. he's back at breitbart news. and the publication is taking aim at its former west wing opponents. take a look at some of the headlines. what is the goal in afghanistan? washington does not know. h.r. mcmaster endorsed book that advocates koran kissing. there's word that he's ready to go after some of the people he butted heads with, jared kushner and ivank

war in afghanistan. the president breaking from his campaign rhetoric and that of a private citizen when he promised to pull out of afghanistan. keeping with the america first theme, saying the days of nation-build regular over. the vat gee, light on -- strategy, light on specifics by design. the president reaffirmed he does not want the enemy to know his plans. and a hasty withdrawal like the one in iraq is not an option. >> the vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for isis to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks. we cannot repeat in afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in iraq. >> the president signaled the u.s. would increase troop levels in afghanistan but offered no numbers. the president also put no end date on america's longest war. >> let's bring in retired air force colonel cedric leighton, former head of the joint chiefs. >> good to see you. >> let's start about what the speech was light on. again, by design. light on specifics. here's what president trump said abou

will send more troops to afghanistan.ends flip-flop in somber speech." >> we are prepared to help paul ryan rally votes for impeachment. that was not said by nancy pelosi or any other democrat. that was said by a high-level unnamed staffer at breitbart, the right-wing hate spewing website ran by steve bannon before he joined the trump campaign and now once again officially run by steve bannon now that he's been fired by the white house by president trump. everyone in the white house, of course, assumed bannon was running breitbart while he was working in the white house so it's not that big of a change. but the part that we're prepared to rally votes to impeach president trump, that is new. steve bannon also fought with jared kushner over the direction of the trump presidency and one bannon ally told "vanity fair," "he said jared is a dope." if he continues to find himself on losing arguments, will he really lead the impeachment from the right wing of the republican party? joining me is david jolly from florida and with u

afghanistan, pakistan, india.there is really no one in place to actually put into effect the kind of policy he talked about. >> what would you like to hear about russia, which is becoming increasingly involved in rearming the taliban, in afghanistan. >> they got off scott free. you can't have a coherent afghanistan strategy without putting the screws to russia. so you heard last night the president be very serious about telling the pakistanis that they have to stop their assistance in direct or indirect to the taliban. you didn't hear him say that to the russians. and you continually have to ask why the russians continue to get off the hook over and over again, whether it be in syria, or in afghanistan, where we know that they're playing a role to try to undermine u.s. efforts. >> at this stage, also, what is the incentive to pakistan to step up and crack down on the terror networks? >> if the president is truly serious about cutting off all military and economic assistance to pakistan, you know, then that may fac

policy in afghanistan. he spoke monday evening at the joint base meyer henderson hall n arlington, virginia. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. president trump: thank you very much. thank you. lease be seated. vice president pence, secretary of state tillerson, members of the cabinet, general dunford, and secretary shanahan, colonel duggan. most especially thank you to men and women of forment and very member of the yaud states military at home and abroad. we send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who are injured in a loss after a tragic collision at sea as well as those conducting the search and recovery efforts. i am here tonight to lay out our path forward in afghanistan nd soug -- south asia. before i provide the details of our new strategy i wan to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts, and to all americans listening at home. since the founding of our republic our country has produced a speci

afghanistan is very difficult. afghanistan is you have capital of kabul and a number of provinces that are broken down from tribes to subscribes, what they want most in localized area is they want peace, security and watch their kids go to school, food and some power. they want security. they wanted it in us, then from the africa afghan government, td not get it. like 80s, the whole reason call big ca--taliban came to bed them a way of life. neil: they change. >> you do have to -- understand that this, there is a separate. i am not one that advocates there is good taliban and bad taliban, however taliban itself, as an organization, has always been intraafghanistan this a markedly different ideology and thought process. neil: we're not interesting in toppling them. >> taliban will be a part of afghan society and that fabric of pashtuns. forever. but you ask the going back to mullah omar, who started taliban, they concerned themselves with afghanistan. talibans did not say let's go conquer the world. neil: is it your

america willlltand withh afghanistan until the end.epoporter: militants operatingn afghanistan have lolong been abe to seek refuge by crossing into neighboring pakistan. trump condemns this. >> we can no longer be silent about pakistan's safe havens for terrorists organizations, the taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in afghanistan. it has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. reporter: trump's determination to keep troops in afghanistan reverses the position he took while he was running for president. americans and afghans will be waiting to see if he can stabilize the war-weary nation. brent: i am joined now by -- he has led seminars for u.s. and nato leaders in afghanistan. it is good to have you on the show. let me ask you about the numbers that we do know. there is an estimate of about 4000 extra soldiers. trump did not announce an exact number. could this be enough to put pressure on the taliliban in afghanistan?

to put it bluntly, what happens in afghanistan stays in afghanistan, so there's no spillover effect in pakistan or other countries in the region that can come back and harm us. >> david, what can they do? what other options are there that make any sense, that are politically viable and that make sense in the region? >> i think at the end of the day, the problem was this president did not want to be the president who pulled out, who gave up on afghanistan, he walked away, he certainly was urged by the generals to stay committed, the haunting memory of the u.s. departure from iraq followed by the rise of isis is a basis of this decision. here's what i see, there are two nuts that we have never been able to crack in this afghanistan commitment, there are tens of hundreds of thousands of troops, and pakistan has continued to be of supply and support for killing americans in afghanistan and pakistan. i see no evidence that that's going to change. the second is the corruption of pakistan, pakistan is just a fragile state, we pour money into it and it just gets more corrupt. this is something