many many of the taliban i think that's pretty sure are. shower sure and maybe a. taliban. there or negotiating but we afghans particularly the public will see that as the pakistan food is not allowing them to talk to the afghan government because they were told on conditions and that's being strictly imposed by taliban from or trying to talk to the afghan government and we have said several examples where to start one for trying to talk to afghan government to have been kidnapped or killed and the others here that there are many taliban now that they are sneaking out of parks honest trying to immigrate to other countries you know to find a place where they could stay because they think that peacenik negotiation is not entirely in their hand and it has been dictated by by by date donors particularly pakistan so they're all taliban who would like to negotiate but to depressurize from from pakistan is keeping them out or maybe trying to get to dictate the conditions box on the ground trying to put enough in government. i've been looking at the official statistics coming from

drones have killed two to rekey taliban pakistan the pakistani taliban who threaten pakistan but are currently in afghanistan and u.s. drones killed their top leader mr horizonte and some others that is really a gift to the pakistanis on the eve of a very important visit of secretary of state colors into pakistan where he will put additional pressure on pakistan to stop its support for the taliban and yes there have been a lot of violent attacks but those violent attacks are actually the taliban lashing out because they failed to achieve their campaign objectives of taking and retaining a provincial capital this year in their campaign plan that the taliban announced in the spring of this year they laid out very ambitious goals for creating more territory that they controlled and taking control of some major population centers they failed in that because of the aggressive new policy by the united states government of increased in for information increased intelligence and most importantly increased air power so i would say if you look at the bigger picture this new pressure on pakista

drones have killed two to rekey taliban pakistan the pakistani taliban who threaten pakistan but are currently in afghanistan and u.s. drones killed their top leader mr horizonte and some others that is really a gift to the pakistanis on the eve of a very important visit of secretary of state tellers and to pakistan where he will put additional pressure on pakistan to stop its support for the taliban and yes there have been a lot of violent attacks but those violent attacks are actually the taliban lashing out because they failed to achieve their campaign objectives of taking and retaining a provincial capital this year in their campaign plan that the taliban announced in the spring of this year they laid out very ambitious goals for creating more character henri that they controlled and taking control of some major population centers they failed in that because of the aggressive new policy by the united states government of increased in for information increased intelligence and most importantly increased air power so i would say if you look at the bigger picture this new pressure o

enough to combat taliban. who you know. showed. north korea or maybe some other countries. the policy still continues to be iran but i do use a lot of russian. nomenclature nomen clout to go deep state in the united states runs the potus. obama used to speak softly and is that a president or dave's or minions used to come and threaten us and we clinton and others as the generals in this particular case they're all seem to have a wish because trump is not in the habit of talking soft so this shit you can go it see what to do whatever you like to read on the potus essentially the above the city managed to say and that is you have to dignify honest. steve you keep the bases keep them in if your presence there is more important than either peace the aid or settlement or whether it's known peace in of unassigned is not in that interest peace in the middle east has not invaded first unless it is turmoil up i would like a night states cannot play one country against the other it was a school. this argument about you

the oaf on taliban. the you may have acquired the name but you're just the same again but the way you speak about it is that he is not that huge effect of you can take your oath. because of the way you speak and others from very very sympathetic towards them in international terms they're called terrorists just like the taliban what can you explain tell us something that we don't know about them why is pakistan not doing enough to fight them and completely get rid of the. new terminology or that for example the negative is determined by your chief there because if you know point because of quoted the soft part because you sort by the back they are so what they are dead or is it anyone and you go there resist the american design is it ever missed you may be a terrorist really be. a model that has been happening which i have been and be thought of by and now the news on that one. but this stir milegi is not going to impress either that is just. the example you consider them as terrorists with. boom free wi

, secretary mattis you referenced being in contact with the taliban, unless the taliban showed armful intent to u.s. forces, we didn't engage them and that was modified towards the end of the last administration if the capital were falling we could be engaged. if i understand the fundamental rules of engagement, it is clearly the taliban are an exigencies essential threat to the afghan government we are there to support. if in fact afghan security forces in and of themselves are in contact with the taliban, then we will provide close air support when reasonable. is that a correct interpretation of the current rules of engagement? >> not completely. >> at one time, sir, we could not help the afghan forces unless they were in ex-stremme miss. i was not here then and i don't know why it happened. eventually that was rescinded and they had to be in proximity and in contact, wherever we find them, terrorists, anyone trying to throw the nato plan off and attack the afghan people and government we can go after them always with the caveat we want to make every effort to not kill women and chi

used to can do did they will be able to resist the arm of the taliban the taliban foot soldiers in afghanistan nobody goes from pakistan there may be some leadership here in pakistan but the food source that i repeat myself in afghanistan and everybody understands and believes that fighting percent of the land is standard a is that under the taliban control are under their influence ok they did not even have in many areas i let me bring in the larry come here is taking the americans the us to these so-called safe havens enough larry what is it that the u.s. wants to see the security services the pakistan security services do to try and bring peace to the troubled area including afghanistan well then they don't want them to continue to provide these safe havens and why are my colleague from pakistan us talking about it's not foot soldiers well there are some there that go ahead and they can regroup and come our combat come back again i mean from the pakistani point of view they're trying to ensure that afghanistan does not come on come under their control for example they don't want to see indi

, secretary mattis you referenced being in contact with the taliban, unless the taliban showed armful intent to u.s. forces, we didn't engage them and that was modified towards the end of the last administration if the capital were falling we could be engaged. if i understand the fundamental rules of engagement, it is clearly the taliban are an exigencies essential threat to the afghan government we are there to support. if in fact afghan security forces in and of themselves are in contact with the taliban, then we will provide close air support when reasonable. is that a correct interpretation of the current rules of engagement? >> not completely. >> at one time, sir, we could not help the afghan forces unless they were in ex-stremme miss. i was not here then and i don't know why it happened. eventually that was rescinded and they had to be in proximity and in contact, wherever we find them, terrorists, anyone trying to throw the nato plan off and attack the afghan people and government we can go after them always with the caveat we want to make every effort to not kill women and chi

when do the taliban come to the table? like i said what i think we are looking for is some confidence. let's say we do a conditions based and we do all this stuff? for how long? i'm not looking for a one year, two year, two years, 12 months exactly. but what are the factors that give you confidence that we won't be in the scenario that i just described that even if we do this more open-ended commitment that we won't be having this same conversation 20 years from now. this is not afghanistan's first time at this. as everyone knows, people have come and gone from afghanistan for a very long time and i get the feeling as far as the taliban are concern we could come in and say we will there for 50 years and they will say fine, we will be there for 51. what is the confidence that you have that this change to address not whatever shortcomings might have been in previous administrations strategies but the reality of afghanistan and pakistan? >> congressman, we -- men and women in this world live by hope. they hope tomorrow is goi

or brutal week here in afghanistan the taliban clearly stepping up attacks around the country while the target of those attacks that have been police and the afghan military civilians many civilians have died as well and just brings me to my last and final question and just briefly then why is it that the police and security forces have been the target of these latest attacks. well it's unclear it's you know the united states is putting more pressure on pakistan to try and bring the taliban to the peace table the afghan government keeps saying it's the taliban's last chance to come to the peace table perhaps the taleban wish to show that they were are still going to be strong on the battlefield it's been a very very punishing year with the taliban fighting afghan security forces this latest attack in kandahar province and my one that happened in the middle of the night these soldiers really stood no chance most of them would have been sleeping on their outpost on their base but certainly the taliban stepping up attacks on the afghan security forces i think to show that they can atta

the taliban is intent to u.s. forces we engage them and i think that was modified towards the old last administration. for provincial capital where falling then it could be engage. if i understand a fundamental change to the rules of engagement it is that clearly the taliban as an existential threat to the afghan government so we are there to support and if in fact afghan security forces in and of themselves are in contact with the taliban and we will provide close air support. is that a correct interpretation interpretation? >> not completely. at one time we did not help the afghan forces unless they were in extremis and i was not here then. i don't know why it happened and then eventually that was rescinded but they still had to be in proximity and they had to be in contact. today wherever we find them come the terrorists anyone who is trying to throw the nato plan off trying to attack the afghan people and the afghan government government, we can go after them with the caveat that we want to make every effort t

will, it the taliban is the taliban will against afghan forces. the afghan forces had 16,000 soldiers killed and they stayed in the fight. -- they have proved incredibly resilient. they have had battlefield shortfalls, and we have identified those. to address their tactical abilities, down to their small unit levels. at the end of the day, this is a clash of wills. people and afghan there are some small portion of the afghan people that want to resort to violence to push forward their will. it is not just the afghan government and a small minority, it is the afghan government and $1 trillion in taxpayer support, 10,000 service members, nato allies, support from there is countries as well. we are in our 16th year with no end in sight and i am having a hard time explaining to my constituents what the game changer is that i'm hearing today that will make this different going forward. i mean no disrespect, i'm just not hearing it. congress has suffered from a lack of oversight and a lack of questions asked. >> short, i think it is a fair question. --

government to defeat the taliban. with some combination of the advisory effort, american intelligence assistance, equipment, other initiatives we may pursue in afghanistan is was only to do is maintain a stalemate. of thed change the slope curve on territorial control, make it a bit more shallow, 80 make it a bit positive. we're not going to kick the taliban out of the country. we probably are not going to see a telegram takeover even if -- a taliban takeover even if we do not make a show of force. my guess is either way what we're talking about is something most people would describe as a stalemate and issue is what variation on stalemate doing want as a version of how we plan our military posture. i tend to be pessimistic on what security assistance can do. i do not think a central barrier to the performance of the afghan national security forces at the moment is how much training their junior officers have. i think the primary barrier to the performance of the forces are profound, structural issues having to do wit

they reject the ideas of taliban.from an individual soldier perspective, i think the one thing we can say is that the afghan forces have been incredibly resilient and demonstrated the will to fight. under the most extraordinary conditions. senator reid: they have always demonstrated a willingness to fight. are we viewed as an invading force? gen. dunford: senator, i think anything but an inviding force. consistently the afghan people have requested us to be there. our presence is favorable across the country in polling. typically between 70% and 80% of the people want support of the international committee led by the united states. we have made it clear that our objectives are to support an afghan led peace process. to support afghan security forces. bringing security to the country. so i don't think there's very few people who would consider us an invading force inside of afghanistan. the vast majority are happy we're there helping bring peace and security. senator reid: in regard to the new strategy the new plan, an

security in afghanistan and spotlight after more taliban attacks hundred twenty people have been killed in the space of a few days. we're live in gainesville florida where hundreds of police and big deployed ahead of a speech by an uninvited white supremacist. and he descended into a hall where the latest sports news is no ways women's football team become the first female national team to receive the same pay deal as their male counterparts that and more later in the program. spain's government says it will press ahead with plans to suspend catalonia autonomy after leaders that ignored a final deadline to back down secession from minister mariano hoyer will hold a cabinet meeting on saturday and trigger article one five five of the constitution a measure that's never been used allowing madrid to impose direct rule over the region if barker's in barcelona. spain's political crisis is deepening after failing to comply with the spanish government catalonia will now be stripped of its autonomy and more to let the clock you for in the absence of a clear response we note that he has not answ

urged the taliban to negotiate the taliban's reply was quite clear. we call on the taliban. to enter into a peace process a legitimate process a real process. i want to reinforce to the taliban that the only path to peace and political legitimacy for them just through a negotiated settlement. theoretically it would be nice if they could come if the taliban would decide to want to join question is. afghan government allowed number one but number two i think the taliban have already made a decision they're just going to wait out the united states they've been quite successful in taking over half the country now before it was far far less it's not certain that the taliban well remain a moderate force if they see that they are winning well after visiting afghanistan the u.s. secretary of state then set off for iraq where he may have got a slightly chilly reception after making these remarks a few days ago. lucia's iraq you know the five years. ago says it's going to be a close those losers need to go any further the fighters in iraq need to go. but a source close to the iraqi pr

they've had their own diplomates killed by taliban in the past and yet, they've also supported the talibanat times with mall amounts of money dribbled in or weapons, this sort of thing. the bottom line, i think that iran thrives where there's chaos and you'll see that in syria, you see it in lebanon, what they've tried to do in the eastern province of awed saudi arabia and you see it in yemen. the only consistent thing on iran they seem to go where they can create trouble and destabilize countries in their region. it's not in their best interest, we all can see that. objective appraiser said that's not in iran's best interest, but for some reason they keep on doing it. >> why do you think it's not in their best interest. >> if you're looking out for your people in a nation state and not acting like a revolutionary cause to stay in power, then you want peace because you don't want the economic advantages for your people. you're not going to have the kind of diplomatic engagements with your people that represents their best interest, but i think that to those in power right now, in holding t

ok and so the mission is to get the taliban part of the process to the negotiating table. is that a fifty fifty is that a ten percent chance or is there any likelihood of that happening at all well actually the taliban certainly needs to play a fundamental role if the u.s. is ever going to extricate itself from the region and they're going to have to find a political solution this is not a military solution and one piece of the political solution is the taliban and we have to accept that we have to move forward with that in mind jack rice always a pleasure good to have you with us tonight thanks so much. in other news the administration continues to push congress to pass its latest tax plan whatever that is the president has called the plan the biggest tax cut in history and has warned house republicans they could lose their seats in two thousand and eighteen in the midterms if they fail to pass the legislation the president selling hard today also relaxed figures on twitter saying that the new tax plan will not scale back for a one k. plans for more on tax reform we go to

that is foreign taliban. >> foreign taliban. >> the one to the left -- >> we've now raised this army.provinces and we're going to interpret for mazar shareef. just the situation dictated we needed to decentralize. each of these three-man cells then is tasked to support an afghan commander that had between 300 to 7 50 fighters. each of those cells is a four to eight-hour horse ride. it was hot, dusty, dirty, riding the meanest, rankest, nastiest horse. >> i rode that horse one time. >> rusty. >> and i was like, oh, my god, vince, how are you staying on this thing? >> that horse was cross-bred with a werewolf. >> that thing -- >> the americans would get bucked off. the afghans would get bucked off. and everybody would kind of cheer. that was another bonding experience. >> extraordinary defense department photo released today. united states special forces on horseback. >> when is the last time you saw u.s. military personnel in combat on horseback? >> we haven't had them in combat in a long time. that's a tough mission. >> that was kind of a -- >> when i got the phone call at 3:00 in the

there would be important effects on the taliban, on the pakistani forces that support the taliban and certainly on afghans, many of whom have been leaving the country after a lot of them came back after 9/11. it's been trickling out in this period of declining morale because there has been this sense of gradual slippage. that the country is gradually being lost. and i think if that could be changed, you could reverse the flow also of the young afghans, many of whom i've met and admired greatly who are trying to build a new country. and they have a lot of work ahead of them for all the reasons that max got at. but i think they have a chance. as long as they believe in the mission and they stay to complete it. when i say mission here, i'm talking obviously much more broadly than a military mission. those are two me the realistic goals. i can't prove they will be achieved by president trump's new strategy. i do think it's important to caution, even as an advocate and supporter of that strategy, that the president's talk of victory is to my mind unrealistic and probably not even productiv

to be raised we clearly have national security interest going back to when the government led by taliban allowed al qaeda to have a safe haven including 9/11 to make sure return -- don't return to those days but what is god is clear is how we do that or the cost that is a very difficult place to govern that most understand it is a fragile situation, 16 years and if we're there another 20 if they are sitting in those same seats have the same conversation how'd we get the point where we can reduce our commitment so it is not an open a bit -- open-ended commitment or a blank check? we said that it would not but absent from that how do we achieve that very worthy goal? second, while granting there are risks to pull out but there are risks tuesday so what happens under the two different scenarios? because it would be great to bring troops home to commit resources elsewhere in the longer restaged there unless we want our positive outcome is this just a prolonged stalemate? warda we think we can go beyond to get to weigh in more positive outcome?. >> thank you for being here in return the floor

is foreign taliban.rmy. we're going to rise up across the northern provinces, and we're going to press for mazar, shareed. each was tanged to support an afghan commander. each of those cells is a 4 to 8 hour horse ride. >> it was hot, dusty, dirty riding the meanest, rankest, nastiest horse. >> i won one time, and i was like oh, my god, are you staying on this thing? >> that horse was crossbred with a werewolf. >> the americans would get bucked off, the afghans would get bucked off and everybody would kind of cheer. that was another bonding experience. >> an extraordinary defense photo. >> what was the last time you saw u.s. personnel in combat? >> that's a tough mission. >> not i will i saw him on tv. yeah, that was kind of a give away. >> yeah, that's when i got the phone call at 2:00 in the morning. >> well, 2 and 2 still make 4. it was like where could they be? >> we couldn't talk about where we were at or anything we were about to do. and coming from a skirmish, then i get a message something's wron

urged the taliban to negotiate the taliban's reply was quite clear. we call on the taliban. to enter into a peace process a legitimate process a real process. i want to reinforce to the taliban that the only path to peace and political legitimacy for them is through a negotiated settlement. theoretically it would be nice if they could come if the taliban would decide to want to join the government question is will the afghan government allow it number one but number two i think the taliban have already made a decision that they're just going to wait out the united states they've been quite successful in taking over half the country now before it was far far less it's not certain that the taliban well remain and a moderate force if they see that they are winning. despite the u.s. backed campaign to liberate syria's rocket from islamic state now well but over here when rights groups in the less seriously concerned about the city safety and the restoration process to try to bring people home again. the united nations stands ready to assess people with the immaterial assistance

based on your experiences, can we have peace in afghanistan without including the taliban, taliban oris big t ortle t taliban, whatever we want or how we want to define them? and is there a military solution we have not been able to find in the last 16 years? what is your prognosis moving forward? duane: i do not believe there is a military solution there. unless we want to just completely turn into a much larger than what we did before with 100,000 troops, and i do not think anybody is ready to do that or wants to do that, or should do that. so i do not think there is a military solution to the problems in afghanistan. i was very hopeful right after december 2001, we had pretty good success and the taliban was out of office, they were on their heels, and i thought there would be a chance to get the country up and running and unified and have a stable country, but i am not nearly as hopeful any longer. you have to look at the history behind the country. this is nothing, what is going on now is nothing new, it has been going on a long time. like -- i think it is einstein who said, "i thi

sergeant bowe bergdahl of course red from the taliban under president obama, called a traitor by then presidential candidate trump. now faces prison after pleading guilty to desertion. but has he already been punished enough? >> i'm just going to die here from sickness. >> in our abc news exclusive interview. >>> plus, play at home dad, the former baseball mega star alex rodriguez taking us inside his home base. his life in the stands, cheering on new girlfriend jennifer lopez. >> the best show i've ever seen. >> no! really? >> his stories of growing up poor in miami, how his family helped him move on from a major league controversy. >>> and picture perfect, a white house staff photographer getting candid about her years following the first lady michelle obama, and the story behind this famous image. >>> but first here, the "nightline" 5. ♪ ♪ >>> good evening, and we begin here tonight with our abc news exclusive interview with sergeant bowe bergdahl. who spent five years as a captive of the taliban in afghanistan and was called a traitor by then candidate drump. now he could go to pr

in the three separate attacks in afghanistan just the latest in a series of taliban assaults that have left hundred twenty people dead. we're live in gainesville florida where hundreds of putting so being deployed ahead of a speech by an uninvited white supremacist. and back in brussels britain's prime minister trees a maze trying to jumpstart stalled breck's it talks with the e.u. says don't expect a breakthrough. spain's government says it will press ahead with plans to suspend catalonia as autonomy alternators there ignored a final. and to back down secession a minister mariano rajoy will hold a cabinet meeting on saturday and trigger article one five five on the constitution a measure that's never been used on the bridge to impose direct rule over the region barker's in barcelona. spain's political crisis is deepening after failing to comply with the spanish government catalonia will now be stripped of its autonomy. in the absence of a clear response we note that he has not answered our request and therefore we will continue procedure of triggering article one five five of the cons

his post in afghanistan, bergdahl was captured by the taliban for five years.ore being turned over in this dramatic moment. ♪ ♪ >> reporter: today bergdahl at a court-martial hearing pleaded guilty to desertion. he told the military judge, i understand leaving was against the law. i understood. i endangered the safety of my platoon. the army says at least two soldiers were seriously wounded went they searched for bergdahl. tonight he says the words of candidate donald trump, who is now his commander in chief, would have made a fair trial impossible. >> might as well kangaroo courts and lynch mobs. they got what they wanted. the people who want to hang me, you're never gonna convince those people. >> and it goes quickly, right? it's called, you're dead. >> the people who were to the point of saying, just shoot him. you could never convince those people to change their minds. >> and it hurts? >> it does hurt. >> reporter: bergdahl talking in a small shed where he spends a lot of time, described how he survived his five years in captivity to a british filmmaker wh

secretary tillerson: the taliban office is still open. the political commission. >> c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitols tour. we recently stopped in frankfort, kentucky. we asked folks what the most important issue is in their state. one of the most important issues is pensions. important to all of the workers and their families. we have a kentucky public pension coalition which includes firefighters, police officers, state workers, and various other members that have joined us and our partnering with us. it is very important and our coalition is trying to fight and make sure that the legislators and do the right thing and finding funding source for our pension. >> one of the biggest issues is the drug problem. kentucky, the drug problem is rampant. that is definitely one of the biggest issues. >> i work for the commonwealth of kentucky. the most pressing issue right now in the commonwealth is the pl

of this is al jazeera live from london coming up the taliban killed fifty eight people in three separate attacks in afghanistan that's just the latest in a series of taliban assaults that have left one hundred twenty people dead. in gainesville florida where hundreds of police are being deployed ahead of a speech on uninvited white supremacists. and faced with a shrinking catch gaza fisherman palestinian reconciliation will turn the tide on their fortunes. and are the spanish government is preparing to suspend catalonia is autonomy off the council and leaders ignored a final deadline to drop secession plans regions president has put him on has also threatened to call a vote in catalonia parliament on secession if madrid refuses to enter into talks reports from barcelona. spain's political crisis is deepening after failing to comply with the spanish government catalonia will now be stripped of its autonomy in a more theoretical mock you for in the absence of a clear response we note that he has not answered our request and therefore we will continue procedure of triggering article one fiv

no i'm maryam namazie in london you're watching al-jazeera also coming up a taliban storms a military base in southern afghanistan killing at least forty three soldiers we'll have more on that story. protests in pakistan after prime minister nawaz sharif his daughter and son in law are charged with corruption. kurdish fighters tensions with turkey dedicating their victory in iraq to a jailed rebel leader. and his britain's prime minister tries to break the brakes it deadlock over dinner in brussels the head of goldman sachs weighs in with a provocative tweet. spain's government says it will go ahead with suspending catalonians autonomy after the region's president refused to back down on independence prime minister mariano rajoy will hold a cabinet meeting on saturday to trigger article one five five of the constitution a measure that's never been used which allows madrid to impose direct rule over catalonia leave barca is in barcelona. spain's political crisis is deepening after failing to comply with the spanish government catalonia stripped of its total me. for in the absence of a

>> who overthrew the government of the taliban? taliban? the afghans with the support of iran and the united states. but your allies, the ones who are accusing us, were recognizing the taliban, were providing -- >> rose: but -- hold on. then who was behind i.s.i.s. in syria and iraq? who supported financially i.s.i.s. -- >> rose: who supported i.s.i.s. in iraq? >> your allies. they -- now they are exposing one another, after this persian gulf crisis between three of your -- four or five of your allies, they are accusing each other. they are exposing each other who supported more of the terrorists, all of them did. >> rose: who supported the hezbollah in syria from outside, from lebanon to join the syrian government in defending is this. >> charlie, but who prevented damascus, baghdad from falling into the hands of i.s.i.s.? >> rose: i think president putin might say he did mortgages, we did. we went to the support of the kurds. >> rose: i heard you -- you hear me but you continue to repeat the same allegation. >> rose: and you continue to r

if the taliban -- >> the taliban killed 11 iranian diplomats. we almost went to war with the taliban when the u.s. allies recognize the taliban as a legitimate government of afghanistan. i am not finished. in 2003, who was the first country to recognize the government of iraq and who did everything to undermine that government? in 2001, who was behind the establishment of a new democratic government in afghanistan? and who continue to support the taliban? from 2003 to 2011, who was behind every move to undermine the iraqi government? who overthrew the government of the taliban? your allies, the ones accusing us, for recognizing the taliban -- then who was behind isis in syria and iraq? who supported financially isis? your allies. now they are exposing one another after this persian gulf crisis between four or five of your allies. they are accusing each other. they are exposing each other who supported more the terrorists. all of them did. charlie: who supported hezbollah in syria? from lebanon to join the syrian government in defending it? >> wh

urged the taliban to negotiate the taliban's reply was quite clear. we call on the taliban. to enter into a peace process a legitimate process a real process. i want to reinforce to the taliban that the only path to peace and political legitimacy for them just through a negotiated settlement. well maybe that sort of response prompted tillerson to be so mysterious about where exactly he met with the afghan leader nonetheless it seems that multilateral dialogue is needed to solve conflicts but it's quite possible that the countervailing interests of the various parties and factions involved could indeed prove tough to overcome those thoughts of michael maloof that again he thinks the only way forward for rex tillerson on afghanistan is indeed to strike a deal that includes all read. the u.s. really has no other options for afghanistan except to reintroduce one hundred thousand combat troops and that's not going to happen but tillerson is trying to do is bring in selected regional players when you have india and pakistan both looking out for the interests future interests of af