so, are we, the united states in the nationbuilding of afghanistan. are we building afghanistan into a new nation in our image , democracy, are we in the nationbuilding business with that 2 29 billion we spent on civilian programs. >> president trump has been very clear that we are not in the nationbuilding business. rather than terming the war an indefinite war, with the administration had thought to counter was the idea of having a troop surge and announcing the departure at the same time allowing the taliban to wait us out. we are no longer given the taliban and the luxury of knowing when the united states plans to leave and so the united states will leave when we are assured that afghanistan is not again going to become a safe haven for terrorists plotting against them. >> and that may be indefinitely. >> we don't know, has the situation changed in the past 17 years? on we in the same place we were 17 years ago, we have pakistan still supporting terrorists, the government is shaky in afghanistan, are we in the same situation but yet we will say, a

in afghanistan to some 15,500, they heard donald trump say, quoting directly, "we are not into nationbuildingowjust killing terrorists." "and in the end", he said, "we will win." so donald trump's message to the taliban is, we, the american forces, are only interested in winning a military victory and destroying you. so that doesn't seem to fit with your notion that we can talk to the taliban about drawing them into a process when your allies, the americans, and you have 15,000 on your territory, say they are simply going to eliminate the taliban. as a whole, that is one sentence out of the whole context of the south asia policy. you mean of the americans? i mean yes, trump administration. you mean, we shouldn't take trump seriously when he said that? i didn't say that. my point was that the south asia policy is a broad policy which afghanistan government, national unity government, has welcomed it. part of this is to keep the presence of the american troops in afghanistan condition—based rather than time—bound. the announcement of withdrawal of troops by 2014, made in 2012, i had the same vi

in afghanistan to some 15,000, they have donald trump say, quoting directly, we are not into nationbuildingre now just killing terrorists. in the end, he said, we will win. donald trump's message to the taliban is the american forces are only interested in winning a military victory and destroying you. that doesn't seem to fit with your notion that we can talk to the taliban about drawing them into a process when your allies, the americans, and you have 15,000 on your territory, save our centre going to the taliban. —— say they are simply going to eliminate they are simply going to eliminate the taliban. that is one point of the taliban. that is one point of the policy. the trump administration. you mean, we shouldn't take trumper seriously when he says that? didn't say that. national unity government has welcomed it. part of this is to keep the presence of the american troops in afghanistan condition —based rather than time bound. the announcement of withdrawal of troops by 2014, made in 2012, i had the same view then and now. it is counter—productive. the taliban were encouraged. the tali

you don't have to do nationbuilding with us. we are already built.e are strong and we share your interests and values and we are willing from that in a way that we've never and of israel asked the united states to send troops to defend us. one of the great things about the birth of israel is for the first time in 2000 years just don't ask others to defend them in israel defended themselves. [applause] that is the story of security and if you think about which country is most important for that security think about israel's intelligence agency. one of the best intelligence agencies in the world and you saw from that atomic archive. how about round of applause for mossad? [applause] our intelligence agencies have foiled two dozen major terrorist attacks from major terrorist attacks in the last two years. a plane blown on the sky that was taken off from australia that was heading towards the middle east. terror attacks in europe of the scale that you saw in paris when over 100 people were killed. those attacks it's israel's intelligence services that ar

policies, defense american internionalism is prou proud ofr son is going to iraq and engaged in nationbuilding, she's a free trader, she isn't nativist anti-immigrant or anything racially charged about the campaign or about her own life actually. she ends up becoming a trump republican many years later but i think it's a little unfair as the vp in my view she had the chance to be kind of a healthy populist injecting this element into an otherwise establishment campaign from my point of view was without undercutting the core republican values. i was wrong about her as a person underestimating her and maybe the stories also say this is the beginning of the tea party that led to one thing or another, there's too much determinism to get back to my point i will close on december the tea party did and caused trump. rubio and crews were candidates for federal tea party candidates in 2012 and ran for president in 2016. it would have produced rubio and crews but he was a weird offshoot of the various trends and sentiments and attitudes that he exploited very cleverly. he is a good demagogue and i use t

afghanistan's districts, more territory today than it any .2 thousand one, despite 16 years of nationbuilding and throwing resources of the problem, afghanistan's government remains more corrupt the 90% -- 96% of all countries, the number of bombs dropped in afghanistan, in early 2018 was the highest it has been since 2013, suicide attacks went up 50%, and insurgent attacks overall tripled in 2017. in short, the 2 existing ones, so little check on specified targets, geography and time, that these ventures can impose enormous costs, wide-ranging consequences, without triggering much pushback from congress. >>> all of this effort, manpower, allocation of resources, all of these usually consequential and often devastating policies are justified as measures to mitigate the terrorist threat. and given all the terrible cost the negative consequences, the most relevant question is, aside from the legal and constitutional questions, have these policies been successful in mitigating the terrorist threat? have they have achieved that objective in some way? the first problem is of course, there is much

for prosperity is providing security, and humanitarian nationbuilding, and society building programs that are important. forcibly displaced individuals from central america do not want to leave home. who wants to take the risk of going through dangerous gang territories to make it to the u.s. border to be stuck in a backlog for asylum which now houses 700,000 cases backlogs? america is generous, but that is a lot to handle. and recognizing that some of the countries within central america can help themselves. is helping build mexico's asylum system. mexico is not only a country of origin and the transit, but it is a country of asylum, vulnerable from salvador in honduras can find safety before they return home. it is trying to bring these different stovepipes together to the a catalyst to build strengthening of society, and the strengthening of those helpizations, ngo's, that recognizing amongst people who want to stay safely home. that's help them do that as a movement. same routine in africa, and we hope that using these examples have brought some governments along to recognize, on

our water systems including the drinking water, so we need a major nationbuilding program in america that can only be achieved through infrastructure. unlike tax cuts that never pay for themselves how infrastructure does according to the congressional budget office for every dollar invested in infrastructure, you get a dollar 60 in return in terms of economic activity. and the jobs again are indisputable. $1.5 trillion investment for example based on economic and industry experts would create 34.5 million jobs over a five-year period. 6.9 million jobs every year for five years. that's 575,000 jobs every month for 16 months. i woulthat would add $300 billih year over a five-year period to the economy. that would add 1.5% growth for each year. when you add up to 2.5% growth is forecasted without infrastructure, you get that 4% of sustained economic growth over a five-year period. the last time we had 4% of sustained growth 20 years ago and we created 22 million private-sector jobs and we didn'if we didn'thave a budgetae have a budgetary surplus. and these are good jobs in the construct