he goes back to the nationbuilding. nationbuilding is largely a myth. nations do not build other nations. nations build themselves. japan rebuilt japan. germany rebuilt germany. the marshall plan, those countries largely took responsibility and rebuilt their nations. it happened in austria and a number of other countries after world war ii. the difference is they weren't being invaded when they were trying to rebuild. and in a situation like south vietnam and afghanistan, nationbuilding is a bit like sand castles. it is virtually impossible when you do not have a stable security situation, and the people cannot look after their own future. and i think we did waste a lot of money and afghanistan. i actually agree with adam, because nationbuilding is kind of a non sequitur effort. on the other hand, providing basic security was in the best interest of the afghan people, and it did make the region more stable. i think if we focus on that, which i think president trump had it exactly right. he skirt the cost in terms of human lives, casualties, and the mone

a task of nationbuilding in a country that is not really a nation. more than a decade ago, when the afghanistan was already a decade old, had a conversation within secretary of defense robert in his office. i asked him, so when is the last time that afghanistan had a government that was throughout the country and the secretary answered, with one word. never, he said. so, once again we have received the lesson in the impossibility of nationbuilding, phrase that would have appalled churchill because it would've defended his his realism in 1955, the year churchill died, then lyndon johnson's former hubert humphrey said that he had the undertaking got it was exhilarated and he said and i quote, we ought to be excited about this challenge because here's where we can put to work some of the ideas about the nationbuilding. and the nationbuilding is a semi- oxymoron. it is a contradiction in terms, the phrase of building. and as churchill knew, nations like orchids or organic growth, they are not to be assembled and dissipate assembled and reassembled. and a

president biden: our mission in afghanistan was never supposed to be nationbuilding. it was never supposed to be creating a unified centralized democracy. our only national interest in afghanistan remains today what it has always been, preventing a terrorist attack on american homeland. i have argued for many years our mission should be no really focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuilding. that is why i oppose the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when i was vice president. that is why i am adamant we focus on the threats we face today in 2021, not yesterday's threats. today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond afghanistan. al-shabaab in somalia. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. isis attempting to create a caliphate in syria and iraq and establish affiliates in multiple countries in africa and asia. these threats warrant our attention and our resources. we conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries. where we don't have permanent military presence. if necessary, we will do the sa

he goes back to the nationbuilding. nationbuilding is largely a myth.o not build other nations. nations build themselves. japan rebuilt japan. germany rebuilt germany. the marshall plan, those countries largely took responsibility and rebuilt their nations. it happened in austria and a number of other countries after world war ii. the difference is they weren't being invaded when they were trying to rebuild. and in a situation like south vietnam and afghanistan, nationbuilding is a bit like sand castles. it is virtually impossible when you do not have a stable security situation, and the people cannot look after their own future. and i think we did waste a lot of money and afghanistan. i actually agree with adam, because nationbuilding is kind of a non sequitur effort. on the other hand, providing basic security was in the best interest of the afghan people, and it did make the region more stable. i think if we focus on that, which i think president trump had it exactly right. he skirt the cost in terms of human lives, casualties, and the money we were

was not doing nationbuilding. biden's people knew he could open up remarks with those lies and it would just be accepted. amy: let's go back to president biden's address on monday when he came in from camp david as he was being fiercely criticized for the chaos in kabul and what has happened in afghanistan. this is his address about the u.s. mission in afghanistan. pres. biden: i have argued many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuilding. that is why i opposed the search when it was proposed in 2009 when i was vice president. amy: matthew hoh? >> i think there so many things to unpack. getting back to the media, there is a narrative the u.s. did not try hard enough. so when barack obama comes into office in 2009, there are 30,000 u.s. tros in afghanistan, equivalent number of nato troops and contractors. within a year and a half, there are 100,000 american troops, 40,000 nato troops, over 100,000 contractors. the u.s. had a million men army in af

our mission in afghanistan was never supposed to have been nationbuilding.t was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy. our only reason to be in afghanistan was to prevent a terrorist attack on american homeland. i have argued our missions should be focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuilding. i oppose the surge proposed in 2000 nine when i was vice president. that is why, as president, i am adamant we focus on the threats we face today in 2021, not yesterday's threats. today, the threat has metastasized beyond afghanistan. al-shabaab in somalia, al qaeda, isis attempting to create a caliphate in syria and iraq. these threats warrant our attention and resources. we conduct counterterrorism mission and terrorist groups, but we do not have permanent military presence. if necessary, we will do the same in afghanistan. we have developed counterterrorism over the horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on the direct threat to the united states and the region. that quickly -- and act quic

we have seen the cracks in the nationbuilding come to full light in recent weeks. my review had been throughout and you can read what i've written on this. the way to have undertaken this withdrawal would have been to maintain the few troops there with just 2500 3000. there was a slow process because they were so far apart they -- that a power-sharing agreement would have enabled us to lead more responsibly certainly we will be getting all americans out. there have been in particular again, but there could have been things that were done over the last two years including the administration. that might not have let us to the moment that we are at right now. last call for a veteran of the war in afghanistan. good morning. two minutes left. call, michael out of virginia. caller: i'm confused with why we did not have a better blueprint for pulling out of the area. we've done it once before and we did not have this massive cr

our mission in afghanistan was never supposed to be nationbuilding. it was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized marker c. -- democracy. our only interest in afghanistan remains what he has always been, preventing a terrorist attack on the american homeland. i have argued many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuilding. that's why i opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when i was vice president. that's why as president, i am adamant we focus on the threats we face today in 2021, not yesterday's threats. today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond afghanistan. al-shabaab in somalia, isis attempting to create a caliphate in syria and iraq and establish affiliates in africa and asia. these threats warrant our attention and resources. we conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries, where we don't have a permanent military presence. if necessary, we will do the same in afghanistan. we have developed counte

obama said we are not going to do nationbuilding. we were explicitly not nationbuilding under president obama. there is a little flaw in this problem and that is that in order to walk away, you needed an army. you needed to build the army. in order to build the, armies don't exist free-floating in space. they are part of the state. if you're going to have an army, you have to have a stake. if your want to have a state, you have to have some kind of economy. there is a logic of what you are trying to achieve requires reinforcing the state. you can hate that logic. president obama certainly hated it, but he did not get away from it. he just denied were doing it, didn't want to do it, and had a program that it only made sense if you were doing state building. it was very difficult, but i would say short answer is i don't think it was impossible. i think we wasted a lot of time when we had the best opportunity in the early years when there was no fighting. i could drive around large parts of afghanistan in 2005. it became progressively m

our mission in afghanistan was never supposed to have been nationbuilding. it was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy. our only vital national interest in afghanistan remains today what has always been, preventing a terrorist attack on american homeland. i've argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuilding. that's why i opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when i was vice president. and that's why as president i'm adamant we focus on the threats we face today in 2021, not yesterday's threats. today a terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond afghanistan. al shabaab in somalia, syria, isis attempting to create a caliphate in syria and iraq and establish affiliates in multiple countries in africa and asia. these threats warrant our attention and our resources. we conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don't have permanent military presence. if necessary, we'll do the same in afghani

the reconstruction efforts and the nationbuilding efforts were not sustainable.— sustainable.le. that's 'ust what president biden _ sustainable. that's just what president biden has - sustainable. that's just what president biden has said - sustainable. that's just what president biden has said in l sustainable. that's just what i president biden has said in his press conference. we were not there to a nation built.- there to a nation built. that's correct, there to a nation built. that's correct. and _ there to a nation built. that's correct, and i _ there to a nation built. that's correct, and i think— there to a nation built. that's correct, and i think it - there to a nation built. that's correct, and i think it is - correct, and i think it is reflected in this report. when states first entered afghanistan, it was a limited counter counterterrorism mission, and over time it became a nationbuilding mission, and reporter published to assess how that process was going into thousand and eight, and within every single report, you could see that it was not a sustainable process,

he says america's mission was never about nationbuilding. the s&p 500 now double its march 2020 low. berkshire hathaway cells stocks, including biogen and liberty global while adding to just three positions last quarter. this as we continue to see record highs in the s&p 500, perhaps on concerns about rising u.s.-china tensions. the sec chair saying investors should know about the risks of chinese companies, that american investors do not know everything about some chinese firms listed in u.s. stock exchanges. this coming after we have seen the regular holding ipos of chinese companies until they lose disclosures. haidi: we have seen that continuing to play out, chinese tech stocks slumping on monday after another round of it is is him from chinese state media or online gaming. tencent falling. the messaging has been clear. china should tighten regulations of online gaming to ensure they don't misrepresent history. we continue to see the reparation -- the reverberation of this clampdown. other sectors are being affected. shery: perhaps we ar

years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuildingthat is why i opposed the surge, the one proposed in 2009 when i was vice president. i am adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021, not yesterday's threats. today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond afghanistan. somalia, the arabian peninsula, isis attempting to take root in syria and iraq. these threats warrant our attention and are -- our resources. we conduct counterterrorist missions in mobile countries were we don't have permanent military presence. if necessary, we will do the same in afghanistan. we have developed counterterrorism over the rise in capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on the direct threats to the united states in the region. and act quickly and decisively if needed. when i came into office, i inherited the deal that president trump negotiated with the taliban. with his agreement, u.s. forces would have been out of the area by may of 2021. they are drawing down from 15,500 american forces to 2000 troops. the

we set about a nationbuilding task, pouring upwards of -- it's going to be $2 trillion when all is said and done. basically trying to imprint our form of democracy, our form of a republic on afghanistan. that is where it went wrong. at the same time we were trying to do that, we were pursuing a military solution to their problems. we had at one point surged 100,000 troops, or enough troops to equal 100,000 troops on the ground during the obama administration. what did that do? what did that do? the taliban has become more emboldened over the last several years. civilian casualties have gone up. afghan security forces, as much as we have poured $85 billion into building a military and police force their, they have been taking casualties over the last four years, like triple than they were at the early part of the war. you know, there is just so much to talk about on that score, but i think it is when we redirected our initial counterterrorism mission to a nationbuilding mission. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we are going to open up our record -- our

he escaped up through this gradual escalation into much more expensive counterinsurgency and nationbuilding until his efforts essentially collapsed and u.s. forces returned to a coward terror -- counterterrorism foster in recent years before leaving. host: when did you first go to pech and why? guest: i first visited in 2010. i was a journalist covering president obama's surge that year when u.s. troop levels had been rising to their all-time high of 100,000 u.s. troops in the country. i was embedding with different infantry battalions in different parts of the country in a tough fight. the patch was one of them and i got fast -- pech was fascinating. host: why was a fascinating? guest: there was a huge dichotomy with what was going on there and to the rest of the country. traveling afghanistan that summer, the commanders would give you a line about how many new outposts their building, how many new kilometers of road they are paving, how many new afghan security forces they are training. they are on the offensive, surging outcome of doing the counterinsurgency strategy. in the pech, where

josep, nato nationbuilding also turned out not to be the case. i want to focus on security. the consequence of the taliban is going to be terrible for the people of afghanistan, but also very serious for us in europe. there is questions arise. how can we look at the terrorism threat, the people in bagram prison have all been released, including al qaeda fighters and al qaeda leaders, what is going to be the repercussions of the afghan debacle on our strategic vision? first of all, the quality of our information. no one thought afghanistan was going to happen so quickly, so what happened? organizational capacity when it comes to coordinated evacuations, josep talked about chaos that kabul airport, showing how we have not been able to carry out a european-style evacuation of our staff and those who worked with us in a safe way. what lessons are we going to draw? -- draw from the apparently long-lasting american with all that we were unwilling to face up to? we are not able to anymore and it has consequences for our own security. finally, we need to think about the impact it wi

you said that nato is able to carry out nationbuilding. that also turned out not to be the case. there's a lot to say, but i want to focus on security related aspects. obviously the consequences of the taliban takeover are going to be terrible for the people of afghanistan, but it will be serious for us in europe. various questions arise. how can we look at the terrorism threat of people in the prison who have all been released, including several al qaeda fighters and al qaeda leaders. what is going to be the repercussions of the afghan -- on strategic vision and the quality of our information? no one thought afghanistan was going to collapse so quickly, so what happened there. organizational capacity when it comes to coordinated evacuations. they have talked about the chaos at the airport showing how we have not really been able to carry out a proper european star evacuation of our staff and those who have worked with us, in a safe way. what lessons are we going to draw from the apparently long-lasting american withdrawal, which we were unwilling to face up to. and it has conseq

he says america's mission was never about nationbuilding. haidi: the s&p 500 extending its search. now double its march 2020 low. shery: tesla shares take a tumble as regulars open an investigation into its autopilot system. this is the picture across wall street. we are seeing u.s. futures muted at the open. this after resolve the s&p 500 closed at another record high. we are talking about the fifth consecutive session. yielding sectors like health care and utility shares to it was interesting we some of the vix gaining ground today for the first time in four days. we have seen a measure of implied volatility in the vix options advancing for five out of the past seven weeks. we had some dollar strength given some of those safe haven moves. wti lost ground in the session given the concern in the delta pandemic. not to mention the economic concern. it was all about the rallies on the s&p 500, erasing all the pandemic losses. 100% gains since march of 2020. the 49th record close since the end of last year. but bucking the move in the equity m

you're not going to do anymore nationbuilding -- we are not going to do anymore nationbuilding. that is a policy we had for a while. when afghanistan started, we started it cia infiltration. i think we are going to learn something in the next 10 to 20 years regarding foreign policy. host: we will hear next from carol in texas. good morning. caller: i was going to say that americans today are more interested no matter what the crisis is in our country in name-calling and finding someone to blame. what i'm interested is to have someone -- in a staff someone comment on they did not come to our country. we went over there, many decades of oil and treasure, sending contractors to make money and get the oil. we always want to blame somebody else. usually people of a different caller for anything going on. people need to stop blaming everyone and look at our history and see way back how we got to where we are instead of a short look back from 9/11. go a lot further and see what our part was in all of this. we went over there. they did not come over here. host: about 20 minutes left in

if you want to look at this debacle, it started with bush who started nationbuilding and ran throughrump to triton's withdrawal to biden's -- withdrawal to biden -- the afghan government was corrupt from top to bottom. afghans were being shook down for money. the programs we tried to put in place were siphoned off for their revenue captured by leaders of the afghan government , starting with mr. karzai. i have not heard you speak once about this. the effect of the matter is, no one in a country is going to fight for a government they know is abusive, corrupt, and is not working for the people but working for their own elites. i would like for you to speak about this. that, for me, was the main driver of our failure of afghanistan as it was in vietnam where we backed a completely corrupt regime that had no depth with the people. host: paul, thank you. guest: that is a great point and one thing i was trying to touch on when i mentioned there were several reasons we are seeing issues here. corruption is one of them. afghan commanders would have forces and would have all of the names to

nationbuilding, trying to unite afghanistan, something that has never been done over many centuries of afghans history. moving on from that mindset and those kind of large-scale troop deployments will make us stronger and more effective and safer at home. and for anyone who gets the wrong idea, let me say clearly, to those who wish america harm, to those who engage with us or our allies, know this. the united states will never rest. we will not forgive, we will not forget. we will hunt you down to the ends of the earth and he will pay the ultimate price. and let me be clear. we will support the afghan people through diplomacy, international influence and humanitarian aid, we will continue to push for diplomacy engagement to prevent violence and instability. we will continue to speak out for the basic rights of the afghan people, especially women and girls, as we speak out for women and girls all around the globe. and i have been clear that human rights will be the center of our foreign policy, but the way to do that is not the in list military deployments. but through diplomacy, econom

nationbuilding. in that regard, there downsize will be more effective. taylor: smart and brutally honest comments from ian bre mmer. among the geopolitical turmoil going on, there are talking a lot about china. we got a lot of that data overnight and some of the peak growth concerns that we got. i want to bring a few highlights. retail sales 8%. industrial production up 6.4%, well below estimates. in unemployment rate that rose back up to 5.1%. this chart of course, the retail sales but it has been across the board, caroline. what do you think about peak growth being behind? caroline: flooding in central china and weak auto sales, slope property market in environmental policies -- not to mention their own regulatory headwinds caused by the government itself to chart a crackdown on these outperforming industries and foreign capital from flooding in. we talk about china also in the focus of the delta virus. all of this is something we want to dig in into the future of china and implications thereof. we'll be talking the revelatory outlook next. tech crackd

so there was one thing that he said that stuck out to me which was our goal was never nationbuilding. and that is not true. our goal was nationbuilding or at least in piecemeal in is drifted out because we wanted t build thriving society in democracy so women like that poor afghan reporter that had the most poignant moment of the briefing where she said she put of her mask at her home flag on it in she said where is my president in she was talking about the afghan president he left yesterday and we don't kno where he is. and, we did, and i believed in it, tried to create a safe plac for minorities in afghanistan, for women to thrive they have a good job, to not be subjugated to the whims of their husbands, et cetera. and i think that we need to tal about that more because i've been looking at what the establishment in saying which i that this foreign relations, people put out a lot of ideas that i generally agree with as moderate, and they are saying this is not binary, it's not ou or income it's how we get out and no one disagrees about the outcome is just the way we get there. i did

our mission in afghanistan was never supposed to have been nationbuilding. it was never supposed to be creating a unified centralized democracy. are only interest in afghanista remains today what it has alway been, preventing a terrorist attack on american homeland. i have argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nationbuilding. that's why i oppose the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when i was vice president. that's why as president, i am adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021, not yesterday's threats. today, the terrorist threats is metastasized well beyond afghanistan. somalia, arabian couldn't peninsula. syria, isis attempt to create a fight in syria and erect. and establish affiliates in multiple countries and threats attention in our resources. we conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups from multiple countries where we don't have permanent military presence. if necessary, we will do the same in afghanistan. we have developed counte

joe biden was saying no more nationbuilding. argument was that only by building this country into democracy can you present terror. brent: the president also mentioned china and russia, saying they would love to see the u.s. continue its presence to stay bogged down in afghanistan. what does this mean geopolitically? are we looking at the emergency of a new foreign doctrine for the united states? >> it sounds like it, but we shall see how this works out. as william just pointed out, biden is also changing -- the doctrine is too big a word, but he could also argue the other way around. what would it mean if china really gets involved with the taliban government in afghanistan? and maybe being supported by russia, will this be really better for the united states? this speech for me was mainly offending his decision and reaching out and trying to convince those who criticize him about not taking enough action to get all-americans out. as you just pointed out yourself, he set a couple of times that the americans in afghanistan were

although -- nationbuilding has a connotation work people do not understand it. like they should for our long-term future. it had not been a civilized more democratic nation, they're going to be the future of energy in the world like saudi arabia was for oil. it is inevitable. my concern is that china and russia will control the minerals coming out of this area. the taliban will do the dirty work out of afghanistan. we have to go up against russia and china. they do not care what the taliban govern. -- how the taliban govern. guest: i think she makes a good point. there are rare earth minerals there that are article two -- critical to much technology. i do not know. i do not want to give your listeners a sense that i know something intimately that i do not. i do not know precisely where the united states stands in terms of its engagement with that sector of afghanistan. i do know as deborah points out, that the chinese are extremely interested in acquisitions of those minerals. they will come along with the russians, will start to have a relationship with the tal

but then the mission changed and suddenly became about nationbuilding. i think we undermined that initial success and created more terrorists, and now at this point, we gave the country back to the people that we were supposedly fighting against. and that was all done last year. host: thank you for your input. melbourne, arkansas, republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you, c-span. i really enjoy what y'all do. i feel like america, at this point, we are having to withdraw , but america has strengths. we can not only put drones around there to protect our withdrawal, but we have a fleet of these gunships that, you know, could be circling the airport, just daring them to show their heads with cannons on them and guns. i mean, they could just circle and circle around until everybody is gone. and you know, america at this time has to show strength. that is all i have to say. i do not know why our generals do not use, you know, the threat that we have. we are a mighty awesome country. and i appreciate our soldiers and all that they are doing. god bl

i think it shows you the limitations of nationbuilding. it is the bottom line. when we went in, back in 2001, we were able to quickly achieve the military success we wanted. the taliban were actually making the offer of complete and total surrender to the u.s.. u.s. turned them down and said no we are to keep fighting. if you out -- we want to wipe you out. it was the hubris and extent of the limitations of what military power can do in a foreign country. we have showed there was a huge dedicated effort over the past two decades to fight in afghanistan. to rebuild and create new institutions. that is challenging to do in another country. especially as the rest of those countries begin to turn their attention to other things. we have not been focused on afghanistan in a good two decades. there was zero conversation around strategy, policy, goals, and estates in afghanistan. the sum total -- and stances in afghanistan. the sum total was to get out of afghanistan. congress has not been working on oversight rules. we continue to find -- find through overseas funding

on twitter, this says, if there is anything good about this withdrawal, it proves nationbuilding as a failure. the only ones who benefit are military contractors who make three times the norm. american citizens should never have been there. i'm confident in president biden's afghanistan policy. this evacuation will work itself out. this is a messy situation and evacuating has never been easy. this one says biden has no option. taliban has set august 31 as a hard deadline. if g7 follows boris johnson's on -- suggestion on sanctions, look for hostages to be held for ransom or worse. here is william in ohio. caller: yes. i cannot see it. we should never have been over there in the first place. i remember king george saying mission is accomplished. it continues. whenever you have crooks, the lobbyists, politicians, you are fighting a losing battle. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania, bob on the republican line. caller: there was a british journalist on tv yesterday. i have never seen anybody as upset as him. he was really mad about biden saying soldiers ran. 50,000 soldiers, more than the tot

we achieved our counterterrorism goals and have never -- and never should have been engaged in nationbuildingrigins of the struggle against the taliban lie in the attacks on 9/11 wn nearly 3000 people were killed. al qaeda found a safe haven in afghanistan thanked of the balaban, which is why the u.s. decided to invade and remove them from power. some of those affected by 9/11 are now filling your fully again. -- now feeling fearful again. reporter: in the soaring skyline lower manhattan, a heartrending gap where the towers of the world trade center once stood. footprints turned into memorials for the victims, and on the month where their lives were taken, military action was being waged. on this spot nearly 20 years ago, trying to find the killers and trying to ensure an attack like that never happened again. but relatives left behind are now among those who are furious at how it has ended. 40-year-old catherine wolf was working on the 97th floor of the north tower when it was struck by a plane. no remains of hers were ever identified. her husband charles says there is no question the war wa

regards to what was the purpose of the united states in afghanistan because we did hear that it was nationbuildingthat was to liberalize and conduct liberal democracy here. on the other hand now, when biden is evacuating or withdrawing, he says no, we were just there to engage with al qaeda. we were there to kill bin laden. al qaeda hasn't been defeated. bin laden's killing happened with the support of afghans and at the backs of hundreds of thousands of lives. so yes, i do understand that everyone who votes for a president in the united states has a social contract where they should be the priority. however, sometimes we have to compare the tragedies or the crises people are facing, and i guess after a 20 year war, it would only make sense for the united states to find it within itself to accommodate these afghans and prioritize them because it is a very short window, and this doesn't take too much. it is -- it's effects on the image of the united states is going to be remembered for a very long time . host: the president is sticking to that august 31 deadline. what concerns do you have with that

we have seen the cracks in the nationbuilding come to full light in recent weeks.een throughout and you can read what i've written on this. the way to have undertaken this withdrawal would have been to maintain the few troops there with just 2500 3000. there was a slow process because they were so far apart they -- that a power-sharing agreement would have enabled us to lead more responsibly certainly we will be getting all americans out. there have been in particular again, but there could have been things that were done over the last two years including the trump administration that might not have led us to the moment we are at right now. host: less call. michael out of virginia --last call, michael out of virginia. caller: i'm confused with why we did not have a better blueprint for pulling out of the area. we've done it once before and we did not have this massive craziness that's currently ensuing over there we basically had a blueprint for how to get out of the area that being said on the counter side given the taliban had a blueprint for taking the area over