agreement. >>shepard: it is my understanding from the reading of the printouts of the white house is no discussion of the status of forcesagreement that suggests not only had one not been made but when there is time sensitive matter. >> the president wants do make the most of the partnership which is an accomplishment. there are so many questions remitted it this issue, for example, can karzai survive? as the president of the afghanistan? so many in the country do not like him. but you know what, they like karzai more than they like the taliban. the taliban are hugely important in afghanistan. the best way of preventing them from taking over the country is, really, what decides us on the talk about afghanistan. >> we have talked over the years the way 9 taliban ran the basic necessities such as local government. the taliban sort of governing court and jury that would go from area to area, town to town and issue declarations based on things that happened and the taliban would rule. >> i was living in pakistan at time when the fall ban were formed and they were formed by neighboring pakistan, by the interior minister when

it would not faketake a genius have a status of forces agreement in iraq. we don't have one. diplomacy didn't get us one. we can't have our forces in a country without a status of forces agreement of some kind in any continuing basis. now, i'm one who does not believe that this country has the ability to go around and nation build. i think each country's different, it has its own coulter, its own history, its own neighbors, its own experiences, and they have to do that. what we can do and have done in places like korea and japan is create a circumstance so they can build their countries. and they in the last analysis have to do that. the other thing that you -- about your question that worries me is this. you say other countries don't respect us or something to that effect, that people see problems with us. that's always been so. the country that is the biggest, the most influential, the most economically powerful, whose movies or music or culture affect other countries is always going to be criticized. and i think the mistake is for americans to think that people who point th

of thing, steven clemons, that will trip this agreement up? >> i think there are many things. it was not a status of forces agreement. it was a status of forces agreement that tripped up u.s. forces remaining in iraq and the inability to get anyone there. i think ali jalali is a declared candidate for president in the next election and i think it going to be interesting to wat these various candidates run and whether they support or not a status of forces agreement with the united states because it could become a measure of how afghans look at their legitimacy, and what will eventually, some sorting out over whether the u.s. role in afghanistan was helpful or hurtful. but it could become a test of legitimacy in the eyes of afghan citizens, just as it was in iraq. if that doesn't happen, u.s. forces will not stay in afghanistan after 2014. >> suarez: are the common afghans in the streets, in the marketplaces, in the fields, as tired of war as prident obama saysmerinsare? don't they want to see this end? >> afghans are tired of war. there's no doubt about it. at the same time, afghans do not want to go foot of, and to h

okay the status of force agreement that obama signed, with karzai was a very important mile stop for us. it leaves behind a number of u.s. troops after 2013 when we will withdraw and the troops will be there to both teach the afghan police and their military how to be good fighters and to protect the border with pakistan. if you get the taliban separated and split you have a better chance. they will not go away. this country does not have the basis for another 10 years of war. >> no one has made any progress in this place. >> you are doing a good job you said. >> to make sure that dana cannot talk? >> correct. >> i want to go through all the problems with afghanistan. starting with (a). dana: i have a different position, i think we should have sent more and continued down the path. i agree. i don't necessarily think the american people were hooking for the patience for the war but looking for the moral reason for why we were there and you have to be reminded of that. if that is no longer going to be the goal, i can understand doing this but what i thought was at odds in the speech las

security forces and strengthening and supporting development and protecting human rights of all afghans. >> reporter: sources tell us the dlysd haven't begun negotiating the status of forces agreement that will determine the troop levels. >> shep: what the thinking why the president wanted to sign this agreement now? >> essentially so it would sealed before the nato summit in chicago that starts on may 20th. this lays down the gauntlet for other nato heads of state not to abandon afghanistan. they will try to get financial commitments from other nations to pay the afghan security forces so the u.s. is not the one left holding the bag. since 90% comes from foreign aid. >> shep: pentagon released a progress report on the afghan war? >> that was six months in the making. it cost $207,000 to produce. the report says enemy initiated attacks are down 16% from a year ago but glosses had over the number of attacks carried out by afghan security forces against their trainers. 86 coalition members killed. more than the french troops that were killed since the start of war and 3% of all coalition deaths. >> shep: the president's speech live during this newscast. we'll look how safe we are bel

you can do a very interesting kind of study in terms of the thickness of the so for the status of forces agreement this is what's negotiated between the united states and so whole host nations and it determines. who can access the united states will have what kind of political powers what happens when u.s. soldiers commit crimes in these countries and when you find is that the. entries that have less power or leverage in relationship to united states have much thinner sofas in these cases these countries you'll find that when u.s. soldiers commit crimes they're not held accountable the not and they're not tried under the law of the host nation other not put into prisons in the host nation often they're just brought out of the country back into the united states were deployed to war zone because as they say boys will be boys and these guys been trained to to be more aggressive than so they were aggressive you know. if. you like your like shot up which steroids you know i mean you're working out every day and you've got guns you've got stuff man and so when you leave off the base man i mean you're f

today, in afghanistan it was not a status of forces agreement. it was called a strategic partnership agreement between the u.s. and afghan government but the idea is the same. it's to commit both countries to a plan by which the united states will end our war there. >> today i signed an agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defines a new relationship between our countries. a future in which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation and we build an equal partnership between two states. as we move forward some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. the answer is clear. our goal is not to build a country in america's image or to eradicate the taliban. these objectives would require in many years, many more dollars and most importantly many more american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda and we on path to do exactly that. afghans want to assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. the agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the afghan people. as you stand up, you will not stand alone. wit

and the president bol uxed the status of forces agreement and shouldn't give us great confidence and negotiating with the taliban? we are negotiating with people who -- who brought bin laden in and what reason do they have to negotiate with him isn't president said, we're outta here. >> sean: first of all, meeting with the taliban, the president's confidence in this is abouta reassuring as his confidence in the arab spring and the democracy of the muslim brotherhood and karzai was demanding $2 billion from the united states a year. meanwhile, kick and trashing u.s. troops that had liberated the country. >> yeah. that's because the president's mismanaged a contentious relationship. there is blame on both sides. the president -- he went months and months without direct intersection with karzai and publicly criticized him, which is not the way you go about guiding a guy along the right path. it's a way to get his back up and do the things that karzai's been doing. lots of blame on both sides, so i worry about the president saying he will be able to arrive at a long-term agreement. he di

forces and the number of troops on the ground obviously. a post of 2014, some of that's conditions based, but to get to a status of forces agreement, which is the real technical term for a longer -- this is what is described as a nonbinding executive agreement. i don't think that means very much in practice. it's not a treaty. >> it's more symbolic. >> but i don't want to discount the fact that this is an important milestone on a long process that has been going on for a while. i also think this says something pretty big about president obama. here's a guy that was an anti-war president, came in on that ticket. he tripled the number of troops in afghanistan. now he's saying they're staying for another dozen year. he quadrupled the number of drone strikes in afghanistan. he's fighting in yemen and somalia. he's been an unexpected president, i think, for a lot of people who thought of him as sort of basically a negotiator rather than somebody who was very comfortable with the use of force in certain circumstances. >> so much, though, of what he talked about tonight depends on the afghan national security forces being able to stand up, to go o

that will be another greapt, the status of forces agreement. but it sends a message fopakistan, the iranians, that the united states is dead serious that, afghanistan is in their national interest and we are going to have a relationship with them. deform. >> there has been chatter out of iran that leaders there don't like this agreement. they say that for them, it presents instability in the region. so it has the iranians concerned. >> look, in 1980, the iranians said their number-1 strategic enemy in the region is the united states. and for them to export the islamic revolution, they have to drive us out of the region. post 9/11, we are in afghanistan and in iraq. they have done everything they could to get us out thereof for the reasons i just stated. they want no part of this. >> beyond 2014, according to what we know about the agreement, u.s. forces may remain for training to help the afghans and to help with remnants of al qaeda. do you know anything beyond that. >> no. but the number's going to be very important. everyone's somewhat conce

and we need to not -- i don't think -- and we haven't seen the status of forces agreement or whatevere need some definition on what has taken place but believe you me, too many of our young men and women have been died injured or maimed for life. it's time to remove them from the combat situation because there is no military solution in afghanistan. >> remind me. you were the only vote against the war in afghanistan? >> bill after the horrific attacks of 2001. a resolution came to congress and didn't specify afghanistan. it was a blank check. all it said was the president, any president is authorized to use force. >> force. >> against any nation organization, individual, or whatever. it's connected to 9-11. that resolution, until it's repealed and i have a resolution to try to appeal it. i doubt -- i tried this time. until that's repealed this country can go to war anywhere for any length of time forever. >> they have used that authority for -- >> 30 or 40 times for indent detentions all kind of extra judicial. >> the tapping of the phones. right? >> everything. >> drone attacks? >> e

but the problem is he is a lebanese citizen who should not have been turned over under the status of force agreement all charges and the question that i asked of the president when he came out after usama bin laden spoke in the first person singular, taking a lot of credit for that, who is going to take responsibility for this action to make sure that he is given back to us and he should be properly tried in our military commissions because he did do the heinous act in planning of dressing individuals up in american uniforms, they stormed through the gates and killed a u.s. captain and then they captured four american soldiers, one lieutenant and threen listed and they tortured them and their bodies were found ritually executed. >> what could we do to stop this? we don't seem to have good relations with the current iraqi government and we know they're tied in with iran. what could we do? >> i think right now the ship may have passed and left the port. i don't know if there's anything that we can do but the most important thing, i'd like to see the president or the administration, you know, come forw

force behind that, where the sanctions that really put a bite on them. >> host: of course they stole, you know, our driving for a nuclear status even despite the apparent agreements that had been made designed actually two deal with the plutonium part of the nuclear program. back to the north korean prospects for a forum. they are still catch hungry. maybe we don't see immediate evidence that the leadership is committed to reform, but, of course, the chinese are always there suggesting that the north koreans should follow their path. you know, what really is the way to cultivate an environment where north korea can enter reform direction? you know, at this point, it's of they are looking for cash, but is there a way of drawing them into a positive path rather than pursuing the negative activities we've been talking about? >> guest: well, thing the positive path that's been on the table, really, i think for successive administrations, and i know there's always discussions to the extent of the current administration that's different from the bush administration, different from the obama administration in terms of dealing with north korea, but in the book i go throu