because we hear laurel miller saying it's not that much money. >> well, with all due respect to laurel, here are the facts: pakistan has refused $43 billion since 1954. pakistan built its nuclear program while promising not to build it. a long track record, pakistan offered bases in which return pakistan was supposed to have been compensated way back in the '50s and '60s. only provided an intelligence base, didn't provide the air base promised. the point is there is a pattern here. and that pattern is enabled by arguments like the one that, this is not as much money. china on the other hand gives pakistan loans, which is what they are offering, and they have investment schemes which the pakistani government has facilitated. pakistan has not made those offers to united states investors. but what is more important is that what is pakistan doing basically that is... that amounts to coincidence of u.s. and pakistan interests. pakistan wants the taliban back in afghanistan. the u.s. does not. pakistan is a major nuclear proliferator. the u.s. does not want that. >> woodruff: let me just sto

joining us now is laurel miller to until this june was the acting special representative to afghanistan senior policy expert at the rand corporation. thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> there was no announcement from the administration that they were shutting down your office but they did close up shop in june? >> well my appointment was expiring. and with the expiration of my appointment, they did close down the office. the duties have been handed over to someone else. but there is no separate office dedicated to focusing just on afghanistan and pakistan any longer. >> and that is happening at a time when obviously there's renewed attention and a new announce frmt the president in terms of america's approach to afghanistan and pakistan. this hasn't been the focus of a lot of other news coverage but i want to get your reaction to what appears to be a new plan by the president to go after afghanistan's mineral wealth for the benefit of the united states. i just wanted to get your take on that. >> yeah. i think it's potentially harmful to our national security interests just f