who are, or who is the taliban? >> the taliban are predominantly postion in the ethnic origin -- postion -- pashtun, and the population straddles the border between afghanistan and pakistan. the movement has allied itself to foreign fighters, for example, the chechens, but predominantly it is pashtun. >> when we read in the newspaper or watching something on television that mentions the taliban, what is their relationship with afghanistan? what is their history? they briefly controlled the country for five or six years, did they not? >> one of the narratives that the taliban puts forth is they are a movement that organically grow out of religious schools that are throughout afghanistan. they originally had been built during the 1980's, during refugee problems. they present themselves as this organic movement, and that they came out of the pashtun society, and then sought to bring back justice as they sought it. to remove the warlord government after the soviets withdrew. that is the general story of their origins. t

taliban and feisty still strong and expect to win. the the of the vast majority of the taliban prisoners who were interrogated and made that they took terrible losses in two thousand and eleven but that's nothing new they've taken terrible losses for the last ten years and yet they keep coming back their one of the most resilient insurgencies the us military has ever faced and maybe we haven't given them the credit that they deserve for being that tough and the report bears out the fact that they are in fact resilient that they are and they really really believe this by losing thousands of people they expect eventually to win. and certainly resilient seems to be the word after a decade long war over there and still no clear victory there apart also reveals taliban prisoners and their collaboration with the pakistani military talk about what this means with for u.s. relations with pakistan well our relations with pakistan are so bad right now it doesn't really harm. our diplomatic relations with the pakistanis any more than it already

but it does give insight into the taliban mind. we do not often no the forces, the enemy facing international troops and afghan forces. we do know now, from these 27,000 interrogations', 4000 militants from al qaeda and taliban, they are still almost a buoyant. they did not believe they will be defeated and they are not ready for surrender. >> if i could come to you in an islamabad -- these accusations are not new but do they come with greater force given the source of information? >> yes, they are not new. in the past, the pakistanis have said there has been flawed intelligence and unreliable sources. they are likely to say the same thing this time. but this time around we are talking about thousands of interrogations' that this is based on. we do also have this time around very specific information about where perhaps taliban leaders or relatives of the hakani that were being hidden in pakistan. there are lines in the report talked about members of that family being based and living right next to the isi headquarters here in this

going into the fall, the taliban, these are held responsible by the taliban, were successful in assassinating chairman rabbani, chairman of the afghan high peace council, former president of afghanistan. >> right. >> going into this year or late last year, excuse me, musat kan of the helmand province, a successful aassassination. el hadj ap. bayeg, former chief of police in the hakar and kunduz provinces, a successful attack and assassination. razik, police chief in the kandahar province, that one failed, was not successful, but there were some deaths and casualties associated with it. going into this year, aga, the district governor in kandahar province was assassinated by the taliban. mohammed mahma, the tribal leader in kandahar was successfully assassinated by the taliban. the u.n. reports that 462 civilians were assassinated by the taliban in 2012 -- excuse me, 2010 alone. and so you would argue by these numbers that the taliban has not abandoned its practice of political assassination, is a form of intimidation in afghanistan. is that correct? >> certainly. >> and so one of the things t

, and they support the taliban. and they certainly support and maintain very extensive links with the haqqani network, which is one of the most deadly insurgent groups operating in afghanistan. >> smith: the haqqani network is a major branch of the taliban, with close links to al qaeda. pakistan's military intelligence agency, the isi, has a history of supporting them. >> without their protection, without them tolerating the presence of these operatives-- to do planning, training and using pakistan soil-- they won't be able to do these operations. so, isi knows they are doing it, and isi is happy they are doing it because through them, pakistan promotes her policy in afghanistan. and the policy is "taliban are ours, and they are to dominate afghanistan." >> smith: and we're going to help those who help them. >> yes. >> smith: by protecting them. >> yes. >> smith: by not arresting them. for example, one militant alleged to be close to the isi is a known leader in the haqqani network. (horn honking) according to u.s.

leaves are going to see an increased taliban influence i don't think the taliban ever going to be what it was in the one nine hundred ninety s. but they're certainly going to be somewhat of an influence. for the foreseeable future and do you think with the pentagon making this announcement that they have come to the realisation that a war in afghanistan against the taliban is not really winnable at this point. you know i think that i think that the pentagon has seen that they need to change policy you know what secretary gates left he made a couple remarks saying that basically the real problem in afghanistan the political problem is not the military and that we just saw. the deputy secretary michel foreign ways leave and i think the press there is some in workings within the pentagon of arguing about what what needs to occur and leon panetta said essentially that nation building and counterinsurgency is not what the u.s. should be doing so i think that it's more about less less about winning and losing but more about the u.s. making the decision that it's not in its interest in a more

back the taliban or the afghan government. many people still have not made up their mind. >> this is the afghan police in action. here, they are fighting the taliban, but they also collaborate with the insurgents. they say these man can be trusted. but some reports cannot be believed. >> they have detainees that have just been captured. the perception of their campaign, they are telling us that they think they are winning, and they are telling us that they want us to leave. >> the future of afghanistan depends on its neighbors, and none more so than pakistan. but there are reports that islamabad is supporting the insurgents. the taliban are islamabad according to one report. >> these claims are not new. these kinds of been made for many, many years. it is up to the neighbors like pakistan -- important, yes, but neighbors like pakistan. >> and what of afghanistan for all future? -- and what of afghanistan's future? many afghans from the government to the armed forces when they fear the taliban will be back in power. bbc news, k

can islamabad bring the taliban to the table? >>> good day here in london, early morning in new york, 2:00 p.m. in libya. where on the eve of the first anniversary of the uprising against colonel gadhafi, there's a warning about the statef the company. the rights group amnesty international said armed militias have threatened the security of libya. they say the rebel brigades that helped to topple gadhafi are now torturing those accused of supporting the regime. it accuses the national government of the lack of political will to deal with the militia. the bbc's gabriel gatehouse sent this report to tripoli. in benghazi, the celebrations have begun before the anniversary of the revolution that toppled gadhafi. but for thousands of people held in dell tension accused of loyalty to the regime, there's little to celebrate. amnesty international cataloged evidence of wide spread torture including beatings and whipping, people suspended in contorted positions and subjected to electric shocks. in 12 case, human rights groups say prisone

secondly, taliban leaders should be released from guatanamo. the third demand is there should be no outside interference in afghanistan." it is unlikely american negotiators will accept these terms, though release of some prisoners from guatanamo have been discussed. while some may be supportive of peace talks, there are clear signs there are divisions within the group. many of the younger, more militant members say they are not ready to stop fighting. at a small guest house on the outskirts of islamabad, we had the rare chance to sit down with the young taliban commander from helmund province. for security reasons, he asked that we not show his face. if these talks in bowhat are successful and taliban leaders tell you and your fighters to put down your armes, will you do it? "no, it will not happen," he said, "and those who are talking to the political wing of the taliban, should understand that real peace is only possible by talking to the ground fighters." so the bottom line is you're not willing to compromise. you're not willing to collabor

so much of that we've heard about negotiations with the taliban and the taliban setting up an office and guitar and the u.s. negotiate with them there but without afghanistan being involved and then we had karzai now saying that he's going to personally go to saudi arabia to meet with the taliban to negotiate there how do you really see what's going on there. i mean i think that we are through this sending a message that not only the taliban but also to our client state in afghanistan there's a tremendous amount of frustration with the progress of status making and all sorts of governance. and you know we've seen this recently in terms of the goal of attacks against against french soldiers against american soldiers and against other westerners in afghanistan and this is a way of indicating to the government that there are multiple tracks that we can approach with regards to how we're going to leave and what we're planning to leave behind it ok so as you mentioned too that there have been whispers here that perhaps part of the deal if there are going to be negotiations with the taliba

pakistan is supporting the taliban. that pakistan knew the location of leaders and leaders of the taliban are living next door to security. the taliban, they have adopted a tactic to lessen violence in some areas and almost withdraw troops. then they will return. when they return, they are more popular. finally, the entire mission in afghanistan is predicated on the hope that eventually the afghan army will be able to take over from foreign soldiers who will leave in 2014. this report says the afghan security forces are collaborating with the taliban. they are selling them weapons and even at the vehicles. members of the afghan government are crossing over to the taliban. we asked nato about this. they said it is confidential. they refused to comment. >> in kabul. the security council is debating whether to adopt a resolution in syria that has been promoted by the arab league. it calls for assad to hand power to a deputy in demand and too violent. some say could lead to civil war. our u.n. correspondent told us when a d

if the taliban is not some outside factor.they are afghans, and they -- sort out that government themselves. >> had is the impact of this on the re-election of barack obama? >> i think it will help him in the short run through 2012. but if he is re-elected, americans will be very unhappy. >> how much is a lever in this getting him reelected. >> i think obama is on the right side of getting out of iraq politically, and politically getting out of afghanistan for 2012. by 2016, it's another story. >> will he stay in afghanistan through 2014? this was a lot better for him. would you agree? in terms of getting reelected? >> politics work because people are executed with the afghan war and he has the cushion of having killed bin laden which takes the edge off here's a weak president getting out from the fight. but is the wrong thing to do. he should have been willing to see it through to give the government a decent chance. they'll have a civil war. >> never stabilized more than kabul. but that's çwhat president karzai is in charge

and defeat -- as join said, the taliban -- as juan said, taliban losing to the nato troops and u.s.ot losing to karzai and his troops. then they can take over the country in the same way the north vietnamese did years ago. 34 years ago. and you can see it. we have seen this movie. once the american troops are gone, it's all over. to think, one thing i disagree with charles is, maybe you were being fetishes about the good taliban. they all want the same thing. good ones and bad ones. >> you are leaving out pakistan. it will be decisive because it supports the bad guy, as well as some of the bad guy. in the end it may not want completely hostile afghanistan. it wants afghanistan naturalized. so india -- it could accept a agreement to allow american influence, karzai government in place. and sustain it, because of its influence over afghanistan. that i think is like chinese and russians who want us out and humiliated in vietnam. >> bret: the bad, bad guys and good, bad guys. known knowns and the known unknowns. >> i find it hard to believe that they are going to come to our aid in an i

leon panetta was asked on capitol hill whether the taliban are the enemy of the u.s. >> the taliban as you know, congressman, is a very broad group. our primary enemy in that part of the world is al-qaida, and the taliban elements, the terrorist elements that support al-qaida are also our enemy. >> reporter: so far no comment on the white house on this report of three-way secret talks with the taliban. it was confirmed by military officials in afghanistan. jon: what a development after ten years of war. steve centanni, thanks. jenna: fox news alert on new unemployment numbers. weekly jobless claims fell by 13,000 last week. that is the lowest level by the way in almost four years. it's also the fourth drop in five weeks, and because that number can be volatile when we see it over a few weeks timeframe that usually is a positive. when unemployment applications also dropped below that 375,000 mark that is also usually a sign that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate, which is what we want to see right now, unemployment is at 8.3%. also in other news if you're one of the

based on interviews with taliban and al qaeda prisoners, it states that though the taliban suffered severely in 2011, its strength, motivation funding and tactical proficiency remain intact. prisoners are not the most reliable sources. but the sheer weight of numbers, 27,000 interrogations of more than 4,000 prisoners held at parwan prison in afghanistan gives the report of ring of truth. the prisoners acknowledge they have lost ground in the south of afghanistan and are no match for american troops. but u.s. force levels are going down from a high of 100,000 to the current 89,000 to 68,000 by september. the prisoners say they are encouraged to fight on by america's supposed ally, pakistan and its intelligence service known as isi. as the report puts it, isi officers tout the need for continued jihad and expulsion of foreign invaders from afghanistan. isi is aware of the activity and the whereabouts of senior taliban personnel. senior taliban leaders meet regularly with isi personnel who advise on strategy. a captured al qaeda commander put it more bluntly. pakistan knows everything, they co

pakistan's intelligence service is directly aiding the taliban. that is the charge in a secret nato report that is sparking diplomatic 3. -- diplomatic fury. how much is a friend worth? facebook is trying to find out whether its success with users can be repeated in the market. welcome to our viewers on pbs in america, and around the globe. over the past year, egypt has been no stranger to violence. today, it erupted on a massive and deadly scale at a football match. following a game, fans of rival teams rushed the field, hurling objects. the number known to have died stands at more than 70. many more have been injured. we have the details. >> this is the aftermath of what was a football match. it should have been a celebration after the home team reported a rare victory over another club. but the joy of the three-one win appears to have disappeared. fans in vivid depiction, attacking the players and supporters of the other team. there is a notoriously bitter rivalry, but rarely has it escalated so badly. dozens of people are reported to have died

it shows the taliban as a whole to be very confident. their thinking is come 2014, they will be back in power in afghanistan and will win, so to speak. it also shows that a lot of the taliban don't really trust pakistan. they feel pakistan is manipulative but they don't see any other area to get help so they go along and they take pakistan's aid, and that some of the senior taliban officials are still being given safe harbor there in pakistan. brooke? >> what about the ultimate goal of getting out of afghanistan? does this mean we're even further away from reaching that target? >> yeah. when you look at it, you know, there has been some talk about, you know, the afghan saying that they may meet the taliban for some negotiations in qatar. a taliban spokesman put out a word just recently, in the last day or so, saying that's not true. they respect the idea of negotiations but they have no plans to do so at the time. so still -- hard to say on that. you know, meanwhile, u.s. officials have saying about this report, this is some of the most

pakistan's intelligence service is directly aiding the taliban. that is the charge in a secret nato report that is sparking diplomatic 3. -- diplomatic fury. how much is a friend worth? facebook is trying to find out whether its success with users can be repeated in the market. welcome to our viewers on pbs in america, and around the globe. over the past year, egypt has been no stranger to violence. today, it erupted on a massive and deadly scale at a football match. following a game, fans of rival teams rushed the field, hurling objects. the number known to have died stands at more than 70. many more have been injured. we have the details. >> this is the aftermath of what was a football match. it should have been a celebration after the home team reported a rare victory over another club. but the joy of the three-one win appears to have disappeared. fans in vivid depiction, attacking the players and supporters of the other team. there is a notoriously bitter rivalry, but rarely has it escalated so badly. dozens of people are reported to have died

up till now, the taliban has refused to have any deegs with mr. karzai's government, describing it as a puppet regime. the disclosure came as mr. karzai prepared to travel to islamabad for talks with pakistani leaders. let's go over to kabul. we're joined by our correspondent. can you flesh out what mr. karzai did say? >> well, mr. karzai admitted that contact had been made with the taliban in the presence of the americans, which is something that he's never said before. but we also understand from senior officials close to the president that, in the last few weeks, face to face talks, telephone conversations, as well as a variety of messages were being passed between senior afghan government officials and senior taliban officials. >> i don't suppose there's any great surprise that there are back channels open. but coming public on it does raise the question what sort of level these talks are taking place. do we have any idea yet? upe according to the president, this is a very senior level talk. senior members of the insurgency, but bear in mind t

and as you just mentioned this highly classified report that was leaked shows that the taliban backed by pakistan will rise back to power the u.s. has been trying to form some kind of an alliance with pakistan and hopes that they can help and fighting terrorism but in light of this report is any kind of constructive relationship with pakistan now unlikely. well i think it's not quite fair to say that the taliban would return to power the same way that they were in power before the us bays and it's not going to be that cut and dry it will be a very ambiguous relationship as to who is in power using control the thing that's fair to say is that it's not going to be possible through military force to eliminate the taliban as a political force in the life of afghanistan and the longer we put off into real good faith negotiations with our opponents in this conflict the longer we're going to make sure that that conflict is settled by force of arms now what we've said in other pieces that we put out has been that the people in the regions where the insurgency is the strongest what they said t

assistance and fight the taliban only with its regional allies. i don't think i think the there's a growing realization at least in the camp of president hamid karzai that they do not really want to continue with the american method of fighting me of on taliban and i think they would be very much been very much keen and very much interested in sort of the incorporating and integrating many of you have got taliban into the gun power structure and that's why you see president hamid karzai today right now in islamabad and if you watch closely his meetings the planned meetings for tomorrow president karzai meetings he's meeting with key pakistani political. political and religious leaders islamic leaders who have traditionally maintained very very close ties to the afghan taliban and other have gone resistance groups in particular the lydian have been here are so so he is basically reaching out to the very people who were shunned over the past decade the religious right i think that's a very big and a major shift president karzai has visited pakistan

with the taliban honor a peace treaty?rrespondent katherine heritage is in washington tonight. this has gone beyond talk. >> reporter: claiming the obama administration is laying the groundwork to the eventual transfer of the five taliban leaders. >> operational things that have been conducted up to this point so this isn't an as operational policy change. this is something that is well underway. >> reporter: in a statement on the proposed swap, they insisted we haven't committed any resources. we have engaged in diplomatic efforts and will consult with congress so there is a disagreement between chilly and the white house. >> shep: so, listen, we're going to trust the taliban to honor a peace treaty obviously. >> reporter: good question. look at their track record. we apparently have been talking to them this group has continued political assassinations underground intimidation in afghanistan. look at september 2006. pakistani government is dealing with the taliban to end five years of violence tribal areas and stopping a

went into the country and now afghanis are bracing themselves for the taliban to return back to power so this seems to be very far from a victory for the u.s. was the war than a waste of time. well certainly the investment of lives and resources in the military for strategy was absolutely a ways we said prior to president obama's latest escalations in afghanistan that you know more troops are not going to solve the problem that if you added more troops you would in increasing the temperature of the conflict to more civilians have become the crossfire and that's exactly what happened so the answer is yes i mean that military first strategy has been a waste and if you heard about the recent nato report that was leaked that showed the taliban's self concept is still very strong you'll see that that military first policy has failed to achieve victory and it was always going to fail to achieve victory the right moves would have been political solutions that would have brought all the stakeholders in afghanistan to the table and elected a government through a legitimate means that would hav

you take away those foreign troops and some of that support for the taliban. >> do you buy the taliban is weaker? >> it's not the question of weaker. we're in a silo talking about afghanistan. what i think is right about what the president is doing is this is the first time of a strategic play as opposed to being stuck in a silo. if you ask the question if we were there for five years or ten years longer, america's strategic strength would be sapped even more. that iran and china would be convinced -- >> that's my question. if you were a more conservative president and said, no, keep the troops there. my question to that person -- five more years would do what for us? what would ten more years do? >> ten years more would fuel the ambitions of iran. make china feel america was militarily overextended and stuck in a trap. what you need to do, and what america is doing, and you have seen it in general dempsey's statement in the repositioning towards asia. we've seen a strategic rebalancing of u.s. forces. getting out of things that are convincing the world we're weak and it may look like

for what i understand is goodwill from the taliban, i think this is unacceptable risk. unless we're going to get them to lay down their arms, i don't know why we would do this to our military men and women and to our allies, so i appreciate what you're saying, i just see this as a huge risk in terms of safety for our troops and our allies. i wanted to ask you briefly about iran. i know that you've gotten many, many questions, both of you, about iran. i just want to clarify a couple of issues. does the iranian regime continue to support hezbollah? what kind of threats has hezbollah posed to iran and israel? is hezbollah in the afghanistan strip? and what role is iran playing in iraq? >> i didn't quite write down all those questions. >> basically, do they continue to support hezbollah? >> yes, they do. there is a very close relationship between particularly the irgc, the republican guide course, which is the organization responsible for war around the world. >> is hezbollah not a terrorist group that threatens our close ally, israel? >> yes. >> does iran continue to suppo