the unity of iraq. and yet, there is a part of the country, kurdistan, in which every single person there, at least everyone that i have met, and this was also expressed in a referendum that was held at the time of the first iraqi elections, which -- every kurd i met favors independence. that includes those who hold prominent positions in the central government in baghdad, and in a referendureferendum that the kurds held, at the time of the january 30, 2005 elections, they voted 98 percent for independence. it was obviously nonbinding referendum. and so again, i would say that the interest that we have in iraq is not in any unity of the country, but in avoiding violence. now, there are obviously circumstances where the continuation of the state, of the state, may also be related to a avoiding violence. and to some degree that may be true in iraq. certainly, had the kurds -- kurdistan declared its independence in 2003, that would have produced a very violent reaction on turkey. but, as the situation has

and allied forces in iraq. let's take a look at the many challenges facing the army in this area of persistent conflict. at war continuously since 9-11, concerns are growing that the army is wearing out. of a force of 556,000, nearly half the army is deployed or stationed worldwide with 150,000 news in iraq and afghanistan. repeated year long combat tours strained soldiers and their families. posttraumatic stress is widespread. soldier suicide rates hit record highs. young officers are quitting leaving a shortage of field grade leaders. they are promoting noncommissioned sphergs. the army added 26,000 troops to the ranks since 2004 with plans to add 26,000 more in the next three years. a full withdrawal from iraq should allow a certainly of 26,000 troops to afghanistan. will that be enough to rest weary combat units. general casey, welcome to the show. >> thank you. nice to be here. >>> if you include national guard and reserves, the army is more than a million people. the brunt of the fighting is on the active

that is what we did in iraq. we used the hammer of military force to the surge, but we also engaged with really anyone who would talk to us. detrick of course is knowing which tool you need at which time. i did not think a strategy of negotiation only with the taliban is going to be effective at all. but, here i think we are on the right policy track. i think the surge in afghanistan constitutes the hammer. you can bring that down on the rock of the taliban and their allies, and you start to open up some cracks and fissures. once that happens, then i think engagement and reconciliation makes sense and has a prospect of success. but, if your enemy thinks he is winning, he is not likely to be inclined to reconciliation or accommodation, so first we have got to change the strategic logic in afghanistan, as we did successfully in iraq. reconciliation and accommodation. host: the use of money in this situation, bringing the taliban in, paying them to become part of the afghan government -- talk about that. why is that

the real downside was every time we attack the missile in iraq we were accused of attacking iraq and causing civilian casualties. >> what did the prime minister tell you about his discussion with president bush? >> he didn't tell me anything directly. one of the artificial sense of what was happening, much about the occupation was about what was happening in afghanistan. our office was concerned about the middle east peace process. i took a continued interest in that. the sense that this was all about iraq in my recollection was wrong. [talking over each other] >> this inquiry is about iraq but we have to understand the context. to what extent, more generally, there read different records. one has been declassified which is one paragraph send overseas, we have heard from others. to what extent were you privy to the prime minister's exchanges with president bush orally and in writing in the course of 2002 about iran? >> almost impossible question to answer. i saw the exchanges you had with alastair campbell. i am reconstructing to some extent. probably two sorts of letters that i migh

now, the reason for that is very simple and it emerges from the iraq survey group report. he retained full intent to restart this is program and therefore, it was very important for him that the interviews did not take place, because, the interviews with senior regime members precisely would have indicated the concealment and the intent. >> indeed and indicates, perhaps, a problem going back to the dossier and the specificity there. if it had been said there was a continued intent of saddam hussein having a weapons of mass destruction program, that would undoubtedly have had a degree of credibility but the problem was, that the specificity was that it was there, had been reconstituted and the weapons were there. >> but as i say, and sir lawrence you are right. this is absolutely the crux of it. >> indeed, it is a problem, i do want to get onto dr. blix now, because it is a problem, we discussed this a lot with the lord as well, is that it is true that the issue of material breach was around the question of noncooperation with the inspectors rather than hiding particular we

in the iraq war. questions focused on mr. hoon's relationship with then defense secretary donald rumsfeld and the assessment of the military be this is over 2 1/2 hours. >> well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. today we begin hearing from members of the government who were involved in the buildup and the decision to commit force to action in iraq in 2003. this session are to examine the right honorable geoff hoon the former secretary of state for defense the key discussions and decisions taken on iraq. and their implementation within the ministry of defense and the government. during his period of secretary of defense. it will cover from summer 2001 to may of 2005. i should say at this point that a number of issues and specific incidents which occurred in iraq during mr. hoon's time as secretary of state are currently subject to a range of judicial proceedings. including, for example, the use of snatch land rovers. in fairness to all parties to those proceedings, therefore, the committee will not

straightaway they were into having to administer areas of iraq. as you said, you did not want them to be doing that for too long. >> the answer to your question is that we recognized that they would be engaged in this task, and indeed, you are right, the moment they arrived, there would have been soldiers already engaged in the second phase of operation while some were still fighting. that process was an iterative process that went on until we had taken those four provinces >> the picture that is being built up by a succession of military witnesses, and not contradicted by anything you have said today, is that effectively we had to make this up as we went along. our military found themselves in charge of civil administration of the southeast of iraq, for which they had not been prepared, which they did extremely well. it was not what they were there for, and had not been planned for. the british government collectively had not anticipated that this was going to happen, and we had nothing planned to put in place. >> i agree in the sense but we had

, iraq would be the fourth. he does not have a nuclear weapons, he has some evidence of wmd capability. now, turning than from that statement by foreign secretary to the dossier, the dossier referred to iraq's continuing possession after 1991 of chemical and biological agents. it referred to the saddam hussein, his continuing capability to produce them. referred to his covert attempts to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons. none of that describes his actual program as growing. so was an accurate and to represent a threat from iraq at this time as growing? >> i have said he many times this morning that the reason the prime minister wanted to say the dossier in the way he did was because he had grown more and more concerned about the threat that saddam hussein based based on intelligence presented to him. .. the point i made earlier as to whether this unique threat would have actually been contained since 1991 -- scaap that is a judgment isn't it. >> am i tryin

that actually zarqawi did go into iraq, in fact prior to the invasion.ecause i spent a lot of time obviously out of the region today. when i look at the way iran today links up with terror groups and this is a different topic for a different day, but i would say that a large part of duty stabilization in the middle east that the present time comes for moran. the link between iran having nuclear weapons capability and those types of terrorist organizations, the combination of fat that makes them particularly dangerous. so you're absolutely right, margin, we were in a position back then were poor actually sent to the americans, looks at him and al qaeda are two separate things. i was worried these two things have come together the notion of states proliferating wmd and terrorist groups. by filling that is a major risk today. mac weather indications in the information you're getting that there were links that there were somehow links between other terrorist organizations and hand him his potential to wmd. >> there is obviously saddam and the funding of pale

from here and iraq and afghanistan. would you put up your hand if you are a veteran of iraq or afghanistan? keep those hands up. put up your hand if you are a veteran of vietnam or else all door. thank you all very much for your service. [applause] put up your hand if you have been a troop advisor anywhere. keep the intern's honest. i agree with 90% of what mark said. i will focus on the 10% with which i don't agree with you are free to interrupt as we go along. leadership is necessary in counterinsurgency. i agree leadership is even more necessary in counterinsurgency. i saw this in iraq. the greatest achievement of general david petraeus is not. that was passed over by the french and british. what the achievement was was pushing it down through many special commands through this sort of thing like a battlefield circulation, going out and talking. they both spent an entire day's sitting and talking, skipping the core done to battalion -- i ran into two leaders quoting general david petraeus's letters to the troops. at

and iraq would be fourth. he does not have nukes, he has w.m.d. capability and the tough question is whether this is just regime change or is it -- issued to w.m.d. and you say the tv was clear that we have to be with the americans. but had the prime minister by that time made us up his mind and com midded himself -- committed himself to president bush in joining. >> i think that -- i think within the -- the -- if you look at the transatlantic relationship, with the -- what the prime minister said to you that was fundamentally important to his analysis of the british national a strategic interest. yes. without a doubt. and therefore, he would -- actually i was -- i was going back to the 1980 operation, operation desert force, there were similar discussions then about when we should or -- whether we should or should not be with the americans. i think the prime minister at this point, his instinct and leadership said be with the americans. but does that mean your tailor your policy to suit theirs? no. as i said

jack said of the powers posing a potential threat to wmd iran, korea, libya and iraq iraq would be the fourth. he does not have nukes. he has some offensive wmd capability. now, turning from that statement by the foreign secretary to the dossier, that dossier referred to the acts continuing possession after 1991 of chemical and biological agents. it referred to saddam hussein's continuing capability to produce them. it referred to his covert attempts to acquire technology and material which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons. none of that describes saddam hussein's actual program as growing. so, was it accurate to represent the threat from iraq at this time as growing? >> the reason the prime minister wanted to bring the dossier and the way he did was because he had grown more and more concerned about the threat saw hussein faced based upon intelligence being presented to him and yes there was the leftovers and so forth that had been there for an awful long time which were not in considerable in quantity more in effect of the intelligence picture he presented to him he

this is part of the debate now in iraq.anding other people's complex history is informed by our own, assessing how difficult the challenges are is always preseudent. host: mike? caller: good morning. sir, a few things -- you look like a deer caught in the headlight with all due respect. you do not look comfortable. it is not so bad that we went in there, but that we went in there on a lie. this is what i do not understand. young men and women have lost their lives. the lie that george bush and his administration told is going to pay for it -- we will pay for it for generations. you cannot make the right. host: embassador ryan crocker? guest: that was a comment rather than a question. i was in the washington in 2002, 2003, and in iraq just weeks after saddam fell. as i look back i don't think we have a situation of deliberate lies or conspiracies. these were hard issues. challenges posed to the international community buy saddam, and to us. i have seen the assessments at the time. those the intelligence community produced po

obama has received his pledge to withdraw american troops from iraq by 2012. i've made it clear to the iraqi people that we pursued no basis or have no claim on the territory iraq's sovereignty is its own. it is a sensitive point* across the arab point* teach world where britain went to war against the military government in 1941 to preserve the rights to overthrow the government at the height of the second world war. but also egypt where britain had fought a violent conflict of the police force to go along the suez canal 1951/52 also the french had violated the sovereignty of syria and lebanon and they refuse to hand over control of the military even when the syria and lebanon had it obtained independence and in their early years of the cold war in the fifties united states was determined to secure a strong military alliance bringing the middle east to the west. even the eisenhower doctrine all founded on opposition to military intervention when the president and lebanon called for american intervention in the 1950 e. -- and 158 lebanese war the americans res

and geoff straw said the threat of wmd, iran, korea and libya and iraq. iraq would be fourth.e does not have nukes,. [inaudible] and the tough question is whether this is just regime change, or is it issue of wmd? >> yep. >> and you say the that t.b. was pretty clear that we had to be with the americans. but had he by that time made up his mind, and had he already committed himself to president bush about joining? >> i think that within the -- if you look at the transatlantic relationship with, would the prime minister have said that that would fundamentally important to the analysis of the british national interests and strategic interests, yes, without a doubt. therefore, if he would have -- and, actually, i was going back to the operation desert fox there was similar discussions going on then about whether we should or should not be with the americans at that time. the prime minister, i think, on these fundamental and strategic interest points his instinct and his leadership would say we should be with the americans. does not mean that you tailor your policy to suit theirs.

on the iraq war, we have given every single document to the iraq inquiry. we have given it the opportunity to look at every document and to ask for which documents it wants to be declassified. the only documents that will be withheld from publication are those that directly affect national security and international relations. this is a full inquiry being run by sir john chilcot. people are being interviewed, rightly so, and asked for their evidence, but it is for the chilcot committee to decide how it proceeds. that is what he proposed. >> graham allen. >> question number two, mr. speaker. >> i have visited his constituency to look at early intervention program, and i am very happy that cross-party discussions on these matters take place. everybody knows the importance of early intervention to help young children. >> there are also tremendous economic consequences of early intervention, and early intervention bonds, social impact equities and many other financial instruments raise money from the capital markets rather than from the taxpayer. will the prime

jack said of the four powers proposing a potential threat with wmd, iran, korea, libya, and iraq, iraq would be the fourth. he does not have nukes. he has some offensive wmd capability. turning them from that statement from the for ren secretary to the dossier, the dossier referred to iraq's continuing possession after 1991 of chemical and biological agents. it referred to saddam's continuing capability to produce them. it referred to his covert attempts to acquire technology and materials which could be used in production of nuclear weapons. none of that, describes saddam's actual program as, growing. so, was it accurate to represent the threat from iraq at this time as growing? >> i said to you many times this morning the reason the prime minister wanted to put the dossier in the public domain the way that he did because he had grown more and more concerned about that saddam hussein faced based upon intelligence being presented to him. and yes, there was the unaccounted for, leftovers and so forth that had been there for awful long time which were not inconsideredable in quantity or

i first saw intelligence in relation to iraq in may of 1999. have asked to see some of that intelligence that the assessments were that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and those continued throughout my time -. there was -- there was a riding on the 17th of march. it is clear. iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons, the means to deliver them, and the capacity to reassess production. the scale is hard to quantify. it is undoubtedly much less than 1991. evidence points out that it is already significant. there was a paper saying iran had stocks of chemical agents and the means to deliver them and pose a direct threat to forces in the middle east. he could produce biological agents without rigid within days. all of that was quantified. >> on this question, as the forces went into iraq, we have being found. when did you begin to suspect they were not there? >> i daresay i was probably one of the last to conceive. there were stocks of chemical weapons, but those stocks faded from the iraq-iran war, so i began to understand how it could

and the story of the year, shock and awe as president bush declares war on iraq.im, your thoughts about that, you know, momentous-- >> again, just to make that list is a reminder how much the media can get lost on stories and frankly aren't that important. elizabeth smart was a tragedy to her father and some americans, but iraq war was more on that and the media picked up on that. >> jon: and the media were accused to giving too much support to the war in iraq when it began. >> it was clear our coverage was gull ab, naive to use cal's words boosterish and here we are all suffering suffering years later that those questions were not asked in a direct and pointed way as we wandered into these wars in iraq and afghanistan, is the most disappointing moment of the media in the decade. >> jon: a lot of the history of the war is yet to be written. >> maybe ten years later, but boy where we sit now we should have been tougher then. >> jon: time for break and lots of extras available on our website, including some discussion that is erupt during the break and hear them aft

, there's no al-qaeda influence in iraq or involvement in iraq. now we're at afghanistan where according to general jim jones and according to general david petraeus there are fewer than 100 al-qaeda agents in afghanistan. i mean, if it's a war against al-qaeda then it couldn't have been more misspent. our resources, our time, our sacrifices and our blood, than the war in iraq. >> for the record eight americans were killed at a c.i.a. base in afghanistan this week, suicide bombing. 24 people were killed in iraq in anbar province and the governor of the provinceas wounded this week, suicide bombing. u.n. is pulling its staff out of pakistan for security reasons. so now yemen which has an unemployment rate of 40% and is running out of oil and water, do we open up a third front in yemen? >> well, i'm like -- unlike a lot of americans, i've been in yemen, the capital of yemen. it's only nine years old as a republic. at the time i was there it was a divided country. that was in north yemen. south yemen was under the control and influence of the soviet

as far as iraq was concerned, the threat from iraq as the 11th of september as the 20th of march, 2003a threat as we perceived it from its weapons of mass destruction. it is certainly been involved in sponsoring terrorism against israel. we knew that. very serious but it was confined to a middle east -- >> hezbollah and so on. so there wasn't really an argument that saddam was helping the sort of terrorism that was being directed against us, certainly not al qaeda. there wasn't a scenario in which he and iraq seemed to be a country in which terrorists which was the case as you say that with regard to iraq that scenario doesn't seem probable, does it? >> there wasn't any evidence that iraq had been involved in al qaeda for the start but there was evidence, however, that saddam was ready to sponsor terrorism when he thought was appropriate and i can't speculate on what would have happened with the saddam regime had we just about continent to wither and die which was the alternative but saddam would have been -- >> was to continue and strengthen it which is what you were trying to do. >>

speaker, on the iraq war we have given every single document to the iraq inquiry. would have given them the opportunity to look at every document and as for which documents they want to be declassified. the only document that will be withheld from publication will those that affect. people being interviewed rightly so and as for the evidence, but it is for the chilcott committee to decide how they proceed and that is what he proposed. >> question number two, mr. speaker. >> i have visited is considered to look at early intervention programs and i'm very happy that discussion on these matters take place but everybody knows the importance of early intervention to help young children. >> there are also tremendous economic consequences of early intervention. early intervention on social impact, and many other financial instruments that raise money from the capital markets rather than from the taxpayer. with the prime minister please encourage the treasury to look at these imaginative and creative ways of raising money so we not only help individuals, but we also find a

why was iraq such an issue at that time?s the history and the nature of the regime and the threat in the context of the threat posed september 11th. i was thinking the public report equated a jic paper i didn't get the time but the calculus of threat. i think it is a very, very good way of putting out the analysis, the context analysis had changed. sabina sent, they were discussing the best way to take forward and try to work towards this objective to solve saddam hussein. now obviously, i know you've heard from lots of different witnesses about the sense of tensions within the american system. and there's no point denying that they were there and they were real. there was tension. but what i think the significance of that meeting was that george bush came out of it and said we are going to the united nations and we are not going there to look for military action. >> that i want to come back to the question of rationale. there was a discussion of breakdown of sanction i understand. of the legion, wmd, and saddam's human righ

so our big question this week, is the war in iraq in our rear-view mirror? elisabeth. >> maybe. right now, we're supposed to be out by 2011. but there can be agreements renegotiated with the iraqi government. they certainly cannot defend their skies. there will be u.s. air force there for a long time. chris: any chance of a big escalation? >> no. in large part because we need the troops in afghanistan. chris: andrea, any chance of a big buildup there? >> ditto. barring some major attack against us, we are getting out. withdrawing down. we don't have the trooms. chris: david. >> we're getti out but keep your eye on what andrea said. a large casualty attack on a retreating army could really change the picture. chris: a big war again? >> if several hundred americans die in an attack that is deliberately designed to inflict as much damage as possible, we're going foff to react. chris: thanks tore a great roundtable. elisabeth bumiller, j klein, david ignatius and joe kleine. see you next week.

and it's certainly iraq, and i was just on a trip to iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan, just before the holidays, and in iraq, i was actually moved by the fact that most of the people i discussed issues with wanted to talk about economics. and they wanted to talk about development, and clearly we're on a path right now where we will start to withdraw significant numbers of troops here, of after the elections on the 7th of march and we'll be down to 50,000 by next summer and by the end of 2011, the plan is that all american troops are out of iraq and we've worked hard to put those plans together and we're on track. that doesn't mean there will be challenges, there's huge political challenges there, we understand that. i've been taken in recent months by the fact that in these very tragic bombings, when so many lives are lost in iraq, that there was not a sectarian response. and that in fact, the government there adjusted and is learning to deal with these kinds of things, and that was reinforced by my most recent visit. by no means do i want to send a message that we're taking our eye of

iraq is a country that's abiding by the rule of law. and that's what protects its citizens in the long run is having a system where you use the rule of law in order to make your determinations. and i think this is the case. >> the blackwater employees were guarding a state department convoy when the shooting began. the company says its contractors were under attack. now, after the incident, blackwater changed its name to xe. >>> a suicide car bomb at a volleyball game killed at least 93 people. it happened yesterday in northwest pakistan near the border with afghanistan. the explosion injured more than 30 people, many of them still in the hospital. an official says most of the victims were teenagers, who were just watching the game. a local police chief says the explosion was so strong, it was felt 11 miles away. he says militants have been threatening the area since the military pushed them out two months ago. >>> some anxious moments at seattle's airport. a man who says he has a gun locks himself in a bathroom and refuses to come out.

we only have to focus on the iraq/afghan couplet.ce the beginning of our involvement it has had an intimate, reciprocal influence on each other. it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the u.s. was partly encouraged to invade iraq by the easy victory in afghanistan and success of the meeting after words which resulted in the greeting of a new government. it led some senior decision makers to believe it could be replicated easily. on the other hand the preparations burned up all the oxygen and sap resources from afghanistan which could of been used to stabilize the situation there and perhaps lead to a different outcome then we face today. the surge in iraq has led to believe we can replicate short- term successes in afghanistan. looking forward i would venture to say that how a drawdown in iraq goes this year will affect our ability to carry forth its policies for afghanistan with in terms of the impact that perhaps success are greater stability might have on domestic support for the war in afghanistan as well as perceptions of our e

iraq is a country that's abiding by the rule of law.at protects its citizens in the long run is having a system where you use the rule of law in order to make your determinations, and i think this is the case. >>> now for some news that we like to report about iraq, no u.s. soldiers died in combat in iraq last month. that's according to the military, zero. this is the first time since the start of the iraq war that the monthly death toll didn't budge. there were three noncombat fatalities but the top u.s. commander in iraq is calling this a significant milestone. since the invasion in march of 2003, 3,477 troops have been killed by fighting. about 900 others have died in noncombat incidents. other dinah magny is in baghdad. we reached out to her to find out what will change and what will stay the same in iraq in 2010. >> reporter: iraq 2010, there are two key dates on the calendar which will fundamentally shape this country's future. march the 7th, national elections. iraqis will choose whether they want a secular or religious leadershi

on the other hand, the preparations for iraq and ongoing military operations in iraq sapped or kind ofburned up all the oxygen in the room and sat the lot of resources from afghanistan which could give been used to stabilize the situation there and perhaps lead to a different outcome then we are facing today. likewise again the success of the surge in iraq has encouraged the belief that we can perhaps replicate the success is at least a short-term successes we have enjoyed in iraq and afghanistan and looking forward i would venture to say that how the drawdown, the elections in the drawdown in iraq this year ago will affect our ability or the administrations ability to carry forth its policies in afghanistan both in terms of the impact that perhaps success or greater instability in iraq might have on the support for the war in afghanistan as well as perceptions of our enemies, the taliban and al qaeda about american staying power and their ability to achieve their objectives. so, iraq and afghanistan will continue to affect their reciprocal influence on each other for the foreseeable f

in iraq, 150 amerins lost their lives this year. that toll is nearly half wt it was in 2008,hen 314 u.s. troops died. 2009 ended with some posive economic news. the labor departnt reported new claims for unemploymt fell unexpected to their lowest levels since july 2008. but for alof 2009, nearly 14 million people claimed unemployment. stocks on wall street cled out the final y of the year's trading on a down note. the dow joneindustrial average lost 120 points close at 10,428. the nasdaq fell 22 points tolose at 2269. t for the year, wall street made a major comack, rebounding from 08's dismal drop. the naaq climbed almost 44 percent, while the dow gaid nearly 19%. ruth lly the last surviving great-grandchild of pharmaceutical magte eli lilly died last nighin indianapolis. over theourse of her life, lilly gave awathe bulk of her inheritance some $80million dollars. st of it went to charitable organizations and ts groups based in indna. she so gave a $100 million dollar donion to the literary magazine "poetry",hich had rejected her s

in iraq? >> it could be a little of both. you have a transition here where, in fact, once we get through the election in early march and iraq working closely with the government of iraq and fallen the strategic agreement that we have with iraq, will begin to transform our relationship. military forces will withdraw overtime. that will have some impact on contractors to read their two primarily support our military presence and iraq. more of the effort will shift from the military component to the civilian component. we may well have contractors at the state department, for example will continue to function and iraq coming to help iraq itself build institutions of government, but over time more of this activity will shift from being a u.s. responsibility to being an iraqi responsibility. >> just one more on that, and i may not have seen this during the holiday season but have there been any official communications, and the marches, criticism coming from the iraqi government specifically to the

and instead he finds himself in iraq. and like many other soldiers who don't know why they are in iraq and afghanistan, he decides to focus on seeing to it that everybody he knows and he trained with comes back alive in one piece and where he can, doing things to help iraqi civilians. so this is from his chapter. this is the second scene. he leaves for iraq without telling his wife that she thinks he is just reporting for his regular sort of training duties. because he can't bear to say goodbye to her. you know, with her knowing that he is leaving and maybe coming back. in the early sunrise hours of april 11, 2003, 3 weeks after the americans had invaded iraq a marine shouted out to ibrahim and his partner, something does happen on the bridge with abe's platoon. he was climbing to the passenger side of the desert colored humvee ready to head out from the iraqi college, the marines had transferred into their headquarters in the city. he scanned the reader and found the panic play-by-play shouted by reservist with his old p

data from the iran-iraq war. and so i began to understand after a period how it could have been that those wanting to pass information back to the united states, to the united kingdom, might have been relying on those stocks that i'm in, some of those shells, for sample, would use as improvised explosive devices, without any understanding of what was in the shelter those shells were being used by some of the insurgents, in the aftermath of the invasion. as i say, without understanding what the work and i'm not suggesting for a moment that they were of recent production. that they were there and clearly and store presumably in barracks and armories that were looted in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. >> so it took you a while. until the report of the survey group? >> yes, i think that was when it began to be clear that this was not the case. again, one of the issues that i've never quite understood, i think it's a straightforward issue, is why it's iraq, saddam, did not have access to the stocks, did he sp

i don't believe that it was relevant to helicopters in iraq. no doubt this is going back to 00/003/004. i suppose it is reasonable to assume that by now, had that budget have been spent in the way that we thought we should spend it, then those helicopters would probably be coming into service any time now. >> so your budget was still under a severe constraint? >> yes. >> i think that was the basic point, in terms of >> to some extent more so because of the way we had interpreted the rules. >> that, i guess, was the point i was making. now, can we just look at these particular questions of helicopters? it is a critical resource. every military commander always says they want more. the numbers were drawn down in iraq after the initial combat operations. was there pressure to keep them there, to find more? >> as you say, it is always a scarce resource. we didn't face the kinds of problems in iraq, at least to the same extent the kind of problems currently faced by british soldiers in helmand and in other places, although there were some ieds, but

the last two being iraq and afghanistan up to 2008.it does draw some general lessons from those various cases, although i point out repeatedly that counterinsurgency there are very few instruments that will work in all cases. so an important part of the leadership is being able to figure out when you can use those particular methods. the first case i'm going to talk about is the malayan emergency of 1948 to 1960. and i'm going to start in the middle of that in october 6 of 1951. go on that date the british high commissioner, sir henry, decided to take a trip to fraser's hill which is about 65 miles outside the capital city. he went in a four vehicle convoy but on the way, two of the vehicles had to stop for technical reasons. but they pressed on. and when they came to a turn in the road where they had to almost come to a stop, their vehicles were ambushed by 38 guerrillas. his wife stayed in the car. you decide to try to make a run for it, and was shot down, shot dead. and this was catastrophic loss for the counterinsurgency. at that t

iraq is preventing civil war. the question is is our present preventing civil war is our presence provoking civil war? i think the answer is clear. just looking at the history of these four years of occupation in iraq, iraq is a mess after four years. and the numbers of iraqis dead and wounded are enormous, into the hundreds of thousands. so yes the history is useful. and, not the history he would get in the traditional textbooks, but the history that a citizen learns for himself or herself and when the system goes to library or the assistant listens to the independent media, when a citizen reads alternative journals instead of simply watching cnn and fox news so yes, history is very useful. it still is today, and i think that one of the things we might learn from history, and this is very important, very important conclusion to get from the history of this country, is that the government's interest are not necessarily the same as ours. in fact they are barely the same as ours. because, if you think the government

host: iraq is also in the headlines. it is official that the united states is alone in iraq. the british left in july about the same times that the romanians left camp dracula. nobody seems to remember -- host: according to this viewer, less government and spending are important. oklahoma city. you are on the line, as an independent. caller: i am calling on the outsourcing of jobs and the outsourcing of money. they are paying little or no taxes. it does not show that this is beneficial to the american public. they have cheaper labor overseas. they are not reinvesting in the united states. the companies are getting -- host: thank you. thomas is on the line for republicans. the top policy issue? caller: the gentleman from connecticut is absolutely correct. the problem for this country is that we have too many freedoms. this is a radical statement. we have uncontrolled propagation, and we have the right not to do anything if we choose not to do any thing. we have the freedom to move and by weapons, and destroy lots of people. i can for seed, with my grandchildren's lifetime, a m

general in iraq calling the news a significant milestone. 149 american troops died in iraq last year,hat's the lowest number of u.s. deaths in a single year since the war began in 2003. says it's a major sign of progressments that's a fairly significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward. i think it also speaks to the level of violence and how it's decreased over time. >> gregg: and while many recent headlines focus on the next step in afghanistan, troops are starting to focus on the end of their mission in iraq. dominic di-natale reporting from kirkuk in iraq on the upcoming transitions. >> gregg, without shadow of a doubt 2010 will be a landmark year in iraq especially for the u.s. military after eight years of combat, combat troops will start to withdraw as early as may and hopefully by august of this year. that's the plan according to president obama. some troops will return home, but there are those who will continue to fight over in afghanistan and two of those troop members are with us now. a major and sergeant first class, talk to jim, first of all, you've already

iraq's abiding by the rule of law.hat's what protects its citizens is having a system where you use the rule of law. >> the employees were guarding a state department convoy when the shooting began. after the incident, blackwater changed its name. >>> a suicide car bomb at a volleyball game killed at least 93 people in northwest pakistan near the border with afghanistan. it injured more than 30 people. an official says most of the victims were teenagers who were just watching the game. a local police chief says it was so strong, it was felt 11 miles away. he says militants have been threatening the area since the military pushed them out two months ago. >>> i'm reynolds wolf. i hope you're enjoying your january 2nd, first saturday of the new year. some of the temperatures we're seeing in the northern plains, 26 degrees. 12 below, but as we get to the afternoon in places like minneapolis, we will be warming up to 2 degrees fahrenheit. chicago, a little warmer, but not much. 30s for boston and new york. back to atlanta,

are we going to see some of the same problems in iraq and eventually afghanistan as we saw in vietnam and canada and so forth? >> beginning in the early 90's the u.s. actually, the military did begin to recognize the political dangers of inherent in the pollution and environmental damage becoming evident on the basis not only domestically but also abroad as we start to pull down our forces in asia and europe and so there were congressional hearings, there were -- more importantly there was steps taken within the military to say okay, going forward we are going to try to be little more careful about these things if only because that is what is expected of very publicly visible public institutions particularly something like the military command when it comes to our activities overseas we don't want this to become the reason why, to know, the next country forces us to pull out. so that it does and to do a whole lot for basis that have been around for a long time. the damage is so a lot of the existing pieces in germany although they have been better maintained in some of the asian bases

i said earlier i think iraq was strategic. they certainly mention that the time they thought it would help to mitigate the is really a problem in the middle east. it didn't. it only made it worse so if that was their idea of a cure, it did not work and they just made things worse. i think we have to refocus our cells. i hope that is what the president is doing. i hope as the years go by of his presidency that he popefrey focus because he has been bogged down by a lot of things they did. you don't disentangle yourselves from the tortures, the wiretaps or the policies. you can just go in and day trips out, so i think we should all hope that there is a refocused going on. and the neocons will continue the drumbeat of their beliefs and that is what we do and a free society a we don't shut them up and in a democracy we do just the opposite but what we tried to do when "the forty years war" is elucidate what they are saying and what they are saying it. it is really important to understand that. not to shatok them but argue and civil

and very specifically, al-qaida in iraq planning. and spectacular bombings and like the ones that we have seen the 3 that we have seen in recent months. so we are very vigilant there. by am very pleased with where we are and the direction we are headed in. afghanistan and pakistan. this was i think, i think that this is my 14th trip to pakistan since i have been chairman. it speaks to the priority. it speaks to from my perspective, the need to continue to build a relationship and -- build it on a basis of relearned trust. because we have lost trust. between the two countries and across the board. we were on a 12-year gap from 1990 to 2002. we don't have strong military, military relationships. because there wasn't anyway to do that. in that gap. so, for the last several years, we have worked hard to head that into the right direction. we will continue to do that. and the focus of the afghanistan-pakistan strategy and the president's decision is everybody and every a little bit as much on pakistan as it is on afghanistan that is lost

the contrasting reacts to today's execution shows how divided iraq remains. as it struggles to overcome the legacy of dictatorship, invasion and war >> sreenivasan: there was new talk today of reconciling afghanistan's government with taliban fighters. president hamid karzai said he wants to let militants lay down their weapons and go home, so long as they are not affiliated with al qaeda. karzai spoke in istanbul, turkey, three days before an international conference on afghanistan in london. he said gathering international support was key. >> in the past, this effort by the afghan government did not have the backing or the support of our international partners. this current effort, this renewed effort, i should say, has the backing of our partners, in particular the united states and europe. >> sreenivasan: at the same time, the nato commander in afghanistan said he hopes an influx of troops will force taliban leaders to accept peace. general stanley mcchrystal suggested former taliban could even join the government. he said, "i think any afghans can play a

both about the iraq war.e's now a senior fellow for the new american security, think tank based in washington, d.c. tom, let me ask you, first, why is this battle important? what are the themes we should be looking at as we peer more closely at. >> it it is representative of several things and it shows you why this war so difficult and how things can go wrong. the afghans survived by smart, by observing. they know how americans fight. they know the intervals they have in which to attack. they know where the american weaks innes are, communications, heavy weapons, and things like overhead reconnaissance means you attack ideally in bad weather like the attack a couple of week ago. go after their communications and then you go after their heavy weapons. you see this again and again. these are smart fighters. they fought the soviet union and fought each other. and now they are fighting us. >> what should we be looking at? what's the -- what's going on there? july 2008, 49 soldiers get orders to establish a base i

war while they never mention the phrase "iraq."eneric middle eastern war. it's really fun. >> it's a big, big critic hit. >> nobody actually saw it in the theater. >> number nine, "district nine." let's look at a clip. >> breaking news, the whole world is watching. the course of human history changed today. >> the ship appears to be stopping over johannesburg city. >> they are spending so much money to keep them here. at least they are keeping them separate from us. >> when you talk about this, you have to mention the special effects. >> special effects are impressive, no question, but it's a great story. i'm not a huge science fiction fan. this is at its best. space ship shows up in johannesburg in 1982. the aliens aren't eagle, but they are segregated. then they want to move them to another place. they have ulterior motives. it's a great, great story from a disciple of peter jackson. >> next one, this is on my list. called "an education," best actress nominee for golden globe, sort of a coming of age story. >> 16-year-old british

conversation and i went about my life, and that including presiding on the eve of the invasion of iraq in 2003 and moved to lebanon and i worked there as an attorney and went about my life and did when i decided to make a sort of switch into journalism and came back and went to journalism school that colombia for years after 9/11 the book that i thought was inevitable had not yet been written or hadn't been published because it takes two to thank 80 someone to write it but nobody gave it a shot. and then that's when i said okay maybe i will take a swing at this, not really knowing anything about how to write a book. but so i started thinking there were certain decisions that had to be made and the first one was the narrative book and there had been a lot of political or academic work done but that's not available to the wide audience or accessible. and something about storytelling that makes it harder for people to have their sorts of guards or prejudice is up and it was an easier rate that engaged hearts and minds to borrow the term from somebody else and so the second decision is hel