one is the reef lad taliban -- one is the reflagged taliban who have grown the next with taliban leadership. one they you did not mention specifically is the frustration that the taliban is essentially pakistan's intelligence agency. the taliban has really become the black dog -- lapdog. the taliban were being increasingly told what to do by the pakistanis. this was a way of getting themselves out of pakistan's shadow and continuing to be a player in the militant mil ieu. the second is what we could call reflagged pakistan taliban. d afghanthe reflagge taliban reflects indigenous trends within the different networks of the taliban, reflagging pakistani taliban is quite different. we can identify two streams, different but related. pakistan for a number of years had been waging this dog and pony show. to collect it nonsense because that is largely what it was. it was one of pakistan's recent operations that was supposed to centershe militancy that are based in pakistan's federally administered tribal areas. for those of us who had been studying it for several years, what pakistan was really

goal is not very clear the taliban has never targeted the united states the taliban goals have always been to control afghanistan they are a local organization it's not an organization who i would want to live under but i don't live there you know the claim that people like john mccain and others in congress and presidents have all raised is that we have to continue the war in afghanistan so they don't any longer threaten us in the united states where the taliban does not threaten us and the notion that we are going to continue to fight the taliban in the interest of the afghan government that we created and arm and support and pay for despite its massive levels of corruption the fact that it includes warlords that are almost as terrible towards women as the taliban this doesn't make any sense the real goals of the united states are just not clear is our real goal to get control of the the the minerals that are potentially part of the wealth of afghanistan is that what we're doing there we want soldiers so that our mining companies can get in with the protection of the u.s. military i

within the taliban who don't have the same views of some of the taliban experience there are some of the want to education is in use are still very very strong that's not bad. but that's not the value of the country millions of afghans went to educate the children millions of afghans are educating their daughters we want peace and we want peace through negotiations and we must get together we are a muslim society we will remain a muslim society we will remain within the dictates of islam islam allows education rather promote education for for all for boys and for girls so no that is not the impression that we have our impression is that once peace comes the country will do a lot better than the remote opportunities for afghans and afghan women of the us and finally president karzai while you're insisting on the negotiated peaceful solution the attacks on they have got army continue you know them last year and you know i have got a soldier is three times more against yes i killed in afghanistan than the number of americans that are clearly what it is that the taliban at least in some

they challenge the taliban in through scores of taliban and advisers, also foot soldiers. the one voice of the caliphate in the propaganda and broadcast the group to operate its own schools and madrassas in afghanistan. overall the current strength is estimated the between 700 to 1000 fighters with information about where it gets its material and financial support and, quarter isis leadership in iraq and syria exercises over it with respect to target and instructions. one thing is clear, which is they have absolutely no friends in afghanistan. the afghan leaders believe that pakistan is in fact complicit in taliban hands of rebranding and security establishment, particularly the intelligence has manufactured the new proxy group to alternate their positions between the taliban in its favor in doing so the pakistani army in particular with cheap and expendable assets to exploit in support of its regional statecraft, while offering pakistan cross capability. there were three or four reasons can't explain. the first one is it takes the taliban, which has been pakistan's long-t

where i would disagree is when it comes a fighting the taliban and. -- taliban. many afghan security forces are top-notch and really put their lives in the line. one of the problems we've had is there are certain capacities the afghans don't have. for example, getting to where the fight is. if we are no longer willing to user helicopters, can they get them there on their own. aref we withdraw medevac, they willing to fight if they know if there would did they will not have a chance of survival. that is one of the issues we need to talk about only come up with these calculations about how many more need to remain in afghanistan. it is not just troop numbers, which is often bantered about in congress, but the capabilities of troo those troop numbers rep. host: on monday, president trump talked about the military effort in afghanistan. [video] president trump: america will work with the afghan government as long as we see determination in progress. however our commitment is not unlimited and our support is not a blank check. afghanistannt of must carry their share o

negotiating with the taliban. to go back and say, there are aspects of the taliban we're going to have to find a way to work around. this is a tribal country we can't deny it any longer. >> first up, i think hans is right, we didn't get a lot of details last night. secretary tillerson's comments are helpful. we can start to peace together what additional troops will be doing. in 2009 and 2010 the obama administration surged troops in afghanistan up to 100,000. we're still there. it's an open question as to what's an additional 4,000 or so troops going to be able to do at this point. what it seems like they're going toward is trying to force the taliban to the negotiating table saying, we don't want to stay in afghanistan forever, however, we will if you guys don't come to the negotiating table, i think that works for elements of the taliban, where that gets more complicated are those groups with very strong ties to pakistan. which is probably why the trump administration has come down very hard on the pakistanis.

will this defeat the taliban? absolutely not.is, over the country over the last of four yea rs ? the country over the last of four years? i think that's possible. —— that has come over. i think if this happens they will get more support from the president. the military does have the ability, general mattis that is, secretary defence matters, has the ability to increase force levels in afghanistan as well. the president has given him that authority. just looking at the troop number alone, you know, you're looking at a tree and not looking at the forest and through the greater pa rt the forest and through the greater part of this strategy i think the key pa rt part of this strategy i think the key part is what the president called pakistan out for, their support of terrorist groups that target americans and american allies in afghanistan. possibly a new role for india which pakistan might not like. peace talks with the taliban but it seems clear there is quite a lot of blood to be spilt according to the resident before that happens

ultimately, comes down to the afghan government and the taliban representatives. >> thank you.oing back to pakistan, officials, for quite sometime, democratic and republican administrations, have tried to get the government to stop giving safe haven to the terrorist group. what leverage do you think you have? sec. tillerson: we have some leverage that has been as guest in terms of aid. their status as a non-nato alliance partner -- all of that can be put on the table. at the end of the day, pakistan has to decide what is in their best long-term interest from a security standpoint for themselves and for their people. frankly, as i evaluate pakistan's current situation, if i were the pakistan government, i would have growing concerns about the strength of the taliban and other organizations inside of pakistan who seem to be growing their numbers and their presence to the point that at some point they become a real threat to the stability of the pakistani government itself. i think they need to be thinking about what is in their best long-term interest, and how can we work with th

i think taliban is an umbrella organization.t contains a variety of groups within it, some local fighters, haqqanis, others. and there have, apparently, seem to be -- sorry, that's too mushy an answer. there have been groups that appear to be more moderate in times. they also appeared to be very much in the second place in the last couple of years and dominated by harder line groups. one of the key things is, you have to be able to fight and talk at the same time. and not treat these as alternatives where you veer back and forth. when you look like you're chasing negotiations, you stiffen the other side. you stiffen what they're going to demand, and then you either don't get negotiations or you're going to have to kill more people to prove that you won't back up. so, a lot of this is how you walk and chew gum at the same time. and you know, that's a little bit of an art. >> all right, jim, last word to you. >> well, just to echo what the ambassador has said, is that the taliban is big. we think of them as monolithic. you have ma

all of this is directed in sending a message to the taliban that we are not going anywhere. we are going to continue to fight for the afghan government and security forces. the taliban needs to engage with afghan government and a process of reconciliation and developing a way to govern the country in the future. >> chris: when you say they're gonna be there until they get that message is an open-ended commitment? racing whatever the president's view is, whatever it takes? >> the president was clear that he's not committing to any deadlines. in his speech if you recall he set our patience is not unlimited. our time is not unlimited. so. >> chris: he's talking about that in terms of the afghan government. >> correct. he's not going to set arbitrary guidelines. and deadlines. >> chris: there's also the question of how this administration defines victory in afghanistan. you and different terms. here you both are. >> attacking our enemies, obliterating isis, crushing al qaeda, preventing the taliban from taking over afghanistan and stopping master attacks against america before i

that came before the taliban existed. i think we have to be very clear. >> we have a lot of colors who want to get in on this before we get to other aspects of foreign-policy area she predicted events on the phil donahue show. explain how the foundation for the defense of democracy is a lobbying group for israeli interests. this is not my business to critique others. there is a rate deal of influence in defending the right wing of israeli interests and netanyahu in particular. you might be indicted for corruption in israel. this is a huge problem. the one thing i would reckon guys as we had success in recent years because of important organizing. they have been working for alice and in right and have had enormous impact in changing that this or spirit of it is no longer political suicide to criticize israel. 60 people skip the speech when netanyahu tried to convince the against their president. that would have never happened. we've had success in this. i think we should change u.s. policy toward israel. i want to address

for attacks in its country and continue to support the taliban.at this chart of u.s. troops in afghanistan from 2009, 51,000. 100,000 u.s. troops on the ground in 2011. the current level, 8400. that goes up to almost 13,001 it's all said and done. steve hayes, editor-in-chief of "the weekly standard." julie pace, washington bureau chief for the associated press and editor-in-chief of lifezette, laura ingraham. seems like there will be more substance to this speech from fort myer tonight. >> typically presidents tried to avoid focusing on the number even though that's what we tend to focus on. it's the number of americans were going to be going into a war zone but it sounds like the president, at the urging of generals and foreign policy, has been encouraged to look at at s more holistic, talk about pakistan and india, and the regional problem. it's not a wholly new idea. it's no secret pakistan is part of the solution here. the big thing tonight is what does he talk about in terms of potential length of u.s. commitment they are and what does he en

and that war continued the taliban was supported largely by pakistan the opponents of the taliban a group that was first called the northern alliance and is now called the government of afghanistan was supported largely by india and later by india and the u.s. and now all the u.s. allies that are in there but this is a longstanding divided country and there are no front lines this is not armies facing off against each other and it's a it's a terrible situation when we heard president trump saying in his speech you know the beginning of it when he was being very presidential he was saying american are tired of this war they're tired of war without victory it's like nobody asked the afghans are they tired of war would they like this war to end rather than say that one side or the other is going to win because ironically everybody agrees that at some point this war is going to end with some kind of diplomacy some kind of negotiations that the taliban are going to be involved i'm sure and the question is how long does the fighting go on how many how many more people are going to die before th

we had one very interesting example when the taliban leader was droned, to use a more the taliban leadermore tactical, kinetic word, while returning from iran, inside a province of pakistan. and there are intelligence reports that while in iran he was meeting also with russians. so i think that, if you have evidence that, whether haqqani or al qaeda affiliated groups, or i'iow or al qaeda affiliated groups, or now is cells, the islamic state cells, that have appeared in afghanistan and have crossed pakistan into afghanistan, or are planning anything that will either destabilise the afghan government will be a threat to western interests, that the united states and nato, don't forget it is not just the united states, there are nato plus countries involved in afghanistan and the president has called upon them to support this strategy. coming back to india, he called upon india not to get involved in the security situation in afghanistan. he called upon india to help afghanistan with development in financial and economic aid, which is what india has been doing for the past 15 years to the t

, but he claims the taliban can't win either.eed three young brothers trapped under rubble by a deadly earthquake on the island of ischia. the last of the boys was pulled to safety more than 16 hours after the quake hit. at least two women died and 39 people were injured. greg dawson reports. the earthquake struck late in the evening, with many people in their beds. rescuers survey the damage, three young boys are missing. pasquale, a seven—year—old, mattias, an eight—year—old and the eldest, 11. each of them buried under the rubble of what was their home. after several of digging, fire crews say they can hear the faint sound of crying. at aam, applause and relief as the youngest, pasquale, is brought out alive. his parents know a least one of their children is safe, but their and the rest of the town's attention focuses on the two others. they are trapped under a bed. they were pushed under as the building began to crumble. they have been using a broom and tapping fallen masonry to let rescue teams know where they are. after 1a

eastern during the state department briefing where he issued a stark warning to taliban and taliban.ense stocks high after tillerson's comments and also on the heels of president trump's saying that he intends to step up the fight against the extremists and taliban forces in afghanistan. boeing saying they were awarded u.s. air force contracts to replace the aging minuteman missiles. and after seven years at the helm, chevron ceo john watson is stepping down. wall street journal reporting this is all part of the company's plan to shake up the leadership in the -- what is called the rapidly-changing energy world. the leading candidate to replace watson is michael worth, a refining specialist at chevron. shares are the second largest oil company in the u.s., as you can see higher on that news. all right. about a to afghanistan. just in the last hour, during the state department briefing, secretary of state rex tillerson praising president trump's speech and afghanistan policy outline. secretary tillerson says he believes that the u.s. will be able to turn the tide in afghanistan with a

this in tahrir is intended to put pressure on the taliban through the taliban understand you will not win a battlefield victory we may not win one but neither will you things are going to get worse for the people of afghanistan especially the civilians we're going to see formal casualties their country in general is going to continue to spiral out of control some of the neo con generals the retired generals a couple years ago talked about a military u.s. military presence in afghanistan for at least fifty years they might be exaggerating the. oh i can usually see the problem because there's hardly any opposition through so despite the promises of making america great again it seems that washington is just going to continue to fight and this war that seems almost impossible of actually winning can go r.t. washington d.c. . and the trump's new plan the u.s. is expected to send up to four thousand more troops to afghanistan with the exact number of remaining a secret america's top commander for the middle east joseph total says the first new forces could arrive within weeks former u.s. c

certainly in delivering the taliban to the negotiating table. acts of has suffered terrorism, their citizens have suffered acts of terrorism is dramatic as any a we have seen anywhere. we have seen pakistan address terrorist organizations inside of their country, but they must -- they must -- adopt a different policy themselves. pakistan and the united states have traditionally had a good relationship but in the past few years there has been a new version of confidence between our two governments. there has been a erosion of trust because we have seen terrorist organizations given safe haven inside of pakistan to carry out acts of violence us.nst pakistan must adopt a different approach and we are ready to protect themselves against these terrorist organizations. them and ready to have their attacks that are disrupting our efforts at peace. we're going to be conditioning and ourort for pakistan relationship with them with them delivering results in this area. we want to work with pakistan in a positive way, but they must change their part. india

host: who is funding the taliban? guest: david money off gold, , we have been there for 16 euros and there is not a mining law or energy law, they know how to make money, taxing the areas producing the resources and keeping a huge chunk of the money. while illegal -- legal minors cannot do it because there is no law. some support from pakistan. between waste from the u.s. military, graft and corruption from the afghan government, and the trading in the commodities, the taliban is well-funded. host: when you talk to the afghan people, what do they tell you? guest: they are most concerned about being abandoned as they know what the consequences would be if the u.s. pulled out. government had a bad week last week and lost an entire company to a telephone ground attack. -- taliban ground attack. support?the air where is the reaction forces and help from the united states or other afghan forces? this planet with structure of the battalion level with air support and medical support, those problems go away. they realize that

i am not one that advocates there is good taliban and bad taliban, however taliban itself, as an organization, has always been intraafghanistan this a markedly different ideology and thought process. neil: we're not interesting in toppling them. >> taliban will be a part of afghan society and that fabric of pashtuns. forever. but you ask the going back to mullah omar, who started taliban, they concerned themselves with afghanistan. talibans did not say let's go conquer the world. neil: is it your sense that president made his case for sticking around in neighborhood. >> interesting, i am looking at twitter. we talk about many journalists making fun of speech saying it was too simplistic, i thought it was opposite, i thought in 20 minutes he gave a concise message, three goals he gave for why we're staying there. i thought from someone who worked in region for a while, he was incredible, we don't need an hour of ortary to them everyone to wait. we need a clear concise message from the president, which is when i think we got, he put our enemies on notice, and called out pakistan. and talking ab

ask the taliban was decimated in . matter of the taliban are not 10 feet tall. and were truly decimated brushed back. the more we've turned it into a conventional army operation, we have gone backwards. now we are at the point where the taliban, having survived this for 15 or 16 years, they are at their best. those survivors knew exactly how collectsoperates and signals intelligence and surveillance and targets and all the rest. military infinest the world, if they could just get the enemy to fight them the way they want to fight. that's the problem. fighting against guys in pickup trucks and flip lops is a different war and we've never truly adapted to fighting that kind of war with the military that was largely built to defend western europe and the soviet union. >> president saying he's decisionto announce a soon. what if we pulled out completely, then what? >> it's harder to define, but i can take what losing looks like. if the u.s. pullback all support for the afghan government, the taliban and isis type forces would end up taking over the country. they alr

steve scully: who is funding the taliban? erik prince: the taliban is largely self hunting. they make their money off of opium, gold, hash. we have been there for many years. there is still not a mining law or energy law. the taliban is taxing the areas that are producing those resources and keeping a huge chunk of the money while legal miners cannot do it legally is -- because there is no law in place. there is a support coming from pakistan. wasteold largely between and the u.s. military, graft and corruption from the afghan government, and trading in those commodities, the taliban is very well funded. steve scully: when you talk to the afghan people, not the military, not the officials what , do they tell you? erik prince: they are mostly concerned about being abandoned as they know the consequences if the u.s. pulls out. for example the afghan government had a bad week last week. they lost an entire company to a taliban ground attack. 60 dead, 30 or 40 captured, 20 guys escaped. where is the close air support? where is the reaction forces? where is the help from the amer

i am not one that advocates there is good taliban and bad taliban, however taliban itself, as an organization, has always been intraafghanistan this a markedly different ideology and thought process. neil: we're not interesting in toppling them. >> taliban will be a part of afghan society and that fabric of pashtuns. forever. but you ask the going back to mullah omar, who started taliban, they concerned themselves with afghanistan. talibans did not say let's go conquer the world. neil: is it your sense that president made his case for sticking around in neighborhood. >> interesting, i am looking at twitter. we talk about many journalists making fun of speech saying it was too simplistic, i thought it was opposite, i thought in 20 minutes he gave a concise message, three goals he gave for why we're staying there. i thought from someone who worked in region for a while, he was incredible, we don't need an hour of ortary to them everyone to wait. we need a clear concise message from the president, which is when i think we got, he put our enemies on notice, and called out pakistan. and talking ab

had 100,000 troops in afghanistan and the taliban didn't negotiate then. secretary mattis issued a statement from jordan where he's travelling calling on the chairman of the joint chiefs to implement the president's strategy. the president said it's not a blank check. right now the government of afghanistan only controls 60% of the country. >> jennifer griffen live. thank you. >> let's get more reaction to the president's address to thel coming after the terrorists no matter where they go. so the game has changed and the gloves are off inside pakistan. india can be helpful in a diplomatic surge and i'm relieved with the plan and proud of my president. >> he spoke of micro managing and that's now how he wanted to handle the military engagement. your thoughts on that and communication which we know there was not a whole lot of between the obama administration and generals on the ground. >> number one he delegated to the generals the secretary of defense and the joint chief of staff to make military decision. i can say this, general obama was a lousy general.

the taliban understand, you will not win a battlefield victory.y not win one, but neither will you. so at some point we have to find a way to bring this to an end. this is a rouge nall approach. part of why this effort took as long as it did, we chose to not just focus on afghanistan. but we under took a fairly come phrepb -- comprehensive view in pakistan and iran. we used pakistan, india to also bring pressure to bear on the situation in afghanistan. pakistan in particular can play an important role here, certainly in delivering the taliban to the negotiating table. pakistan suffered acts of terrorism, their citizens have suffered acts of terrorism i think as dramatic as any we have seen anywhere. we stand ready to help pakistan address terrorist organizations inside of their country, but they must, they must, adopt a different approach themselves. pakistan and the u.s. historically have very good relationships. but over the last few years there's been a real erosion in the confidence between our two governments. there's been an erosion in trust

insurgent groups, that's mainly the taliban, controljust over 10%.hird of the country. so why has the us strategy failed? one of the criticisms in the past has been that president 0bama did commit to sending large numbers of troops back in 2010, 2011, there was around 100,000 american soldiers here in afghanistan. but he was also quite explicit in saying that he wanted america to withdraw from afghanistan and set a date for that. and the argument goes that that encouraged the taliban to effectively wait the americans out. 0n the other hand it seems there is no real simple solution to the conflict here. the crux of the problem seems to be that whilst many in afghanistan and internationally believe that peace can only be achieved through some kind of negotiated settlement with the taliban — because it is not going to be possible to defeat them militarily — at the moment the taliban do not really seem to have much of an incentive for coming to the table for talks because they feel they have got the momentum behind them. so what most analysts say needs t

and so the taliban were the ones who were in play. and so they reached out to them, and amazingly, they even connected them with russia and helped get weapons to the taliban. so yes, it's a turnabout from when the taliban was really, almost at war with iran. now, they seem to think, you know, a lesser enemy would be each other, and get to work. >> sreenivasan: what's financing all this? >> the taliban, as you probably know, have always been financed by pakistan and the gulf arab states really as a sunni force. and they are, actually, have been just trying to diversify under mansour. he was keen to reach out to iran for money, but also weapons, training. and he also gets a lot of money from the drugs, but it seems like that is also how he has connections with iran, because a lot of narcotics that are grown in afghanistan go out through iran. >> sreenivasan: and you're saying that there's evidence of iranian involvement even in some of the taliban raids that are happening in afghanistan? >> we went down to farah, which is a very remote

the taliban.are going to be there in pe perpituity. he talked about the evils of isis and al qaeda. we know that. whether it's a private army, outsourced army or u.s. army, we're fighting the taliban and he says his only goal was to prevent them from taking over while we're there. we're going to leave, they're going to stay. you can figure it out. we've been through this with vietnam. the local people always win wars of attrition. the great power always goes home. he wants an enduring outcome. does that mean we stay? we just stay. that's the great question. permanently. >> courtney raised this issue at the end of her remarks. she said when the president said basically we're going to stay until we see real results from the afghan government, until we see the afghan government show real reform and real results, i think she's highlighting that point in the speech because that seems like a thing that if that's going to be the predicate for america doing anything, that is a recipe for us continuing to

they're not going to go again so they get there is a pakistan taliban which is trying to overthrow the pakistani government but this is different in afghanistan and i would i would also point out that it in night not

had 100,000 troops in afghanistan and the taliban didn't negotiate then. secretary mattis issued a statement from jordan where he's travelling calling on the chairman of the joint chiefs to implement the president's strategy. the president said it's not a blank check. right now the government of afghanistan only controls 60% of the country. >> jennifer griffen live. thank you. >> let's get more reaction to the president's address to the nation. south carolina senator lindsay graham joins us. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> you were listening to the president. what do you think? >> i think there'll be a lot of bipartisan support in congress for this. i'm proud and relieved that president trump made a national security decision and listened to the president and shows the will to stand up to radical islam. i'm relieved he didn't take the advice to withdraw which would be zras -- disastrous. it's a very inspiring speech and i can guarantee you a lot of people in congress will be behind the president. >> you have not been afraid to be critical of the

doesn't want to see the taliban takeover afghanistan.same time he says he believes eventually some form of political settlement with the taliban will be necessary in order to bring about peace. but is pretty much the position of the afg ha n is pretty much the position of the afghan government here. overall things are being very much welcomed in afghanistan. let's talk to colonel richard kemp, former commander of british forces in afghanistan. good morning. our correspondent was talking about the security situation deteriorating in afghanistan over the years. first of all, you and soldiers serving under you fought in afghanistan for territory. how do you nowjudge the situation to be there? the situation has certainly deteriorated since even the days soon after we went into afghanistan in 2001. the reality is the taliban have control of a very large area of the country, and have every intention of gaining control of even more of it. it's only really because of the presence of international forces in afghanistan that they haven't taken ove

taliban -- obliterate isis. taliban, stop them from taking the territory. >> they control more than before the u.s. invasion. you know, clearly, clearly a big problem. thanks. >>> the president's speech on afghanistan started on a rather surprising note. he attempted to first address the visions here at home in the wake of the charlottesville attack. he did not specifically mention the violence in charlottesville but was clearly attempting to clean up some of the explosive comments with this reference to our military. >> the young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home, we cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other. as we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas, and we will always win, let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. >> president trump's handling of charlottesville a big focus for house speaker paul ryan during a cnn town hall. ryan said the president fell short. >>

this in tahrir is intended to put pressure on the taliban through the taliban understand you will not win a battlefield there are three we may know which one but neither will you some of the neo con generals the retired generals a couple years ago talked about a military u.s. military presence in afghanistan for at least fifty years they might be exaggerating but i can easily see that happening because there's this hardly any opposition so despite promises of making america great again it seems that washington is just going to continue to fight and that endless war that seems almost impossible of actually winning. washington d.c. . on the trump's new plan the u.s. is expected to send up to four thousand more troops to afghanistan but the exact number remaining a secret america's top commander for the middle east joseph o'toole says the first new forces could arrive within weeks former u.s. congressman ron paul told us about the implications of the president's decision. he changes the words and makes it sound like the world will come apart if we don't continue to be the world's policem