is it possib to degradehe talibato a point where the talin will not pose a particular threat in afghanistan and pakistan andan they do this militarily ana way otr than having a large number of troops in the ground? george will suggted there was pushedack. think obama has to really refined what he wants to hieve and then sell that to the country. i don't thinhe had done this. >> lete ask you -- why is the enemy the taliban rather tn al qaa. >> because al qaeda is n and -- in afghanistan, but pakist. >> they haveukes, right? >> pakistan is a sovereign country, we can't invade that is ouproblem. >> we inded iraq -- >> on the day of 9/11,raq was an enemy sta, not a friend state. you d't invade france or britain -- younvade not to german big difference. the problem isn 9/11, t taliban rbored al qaeda and allow them to operate d of course the risk is it t taliban return, qaeda will return. >> that the last word. thank you e you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log onto insidewashinon.tv.

in the past two months, a record number of american forcehave be killed in thear, while the talin hasen gaining ground. a new study showthe taliban now has control over 80% of afghanistan, up from 54% only o years ag tourn that around, the top commander in afghanistan, general stan mcchrtal's new sttegy is to undermine the taban by providing more protection forhe ahan ople but thatou take large numbers of combat foes and mcchrystal is expected to as for 25 to 40,000 additional troops, starting next year. >> the increase in u.s. forces we arealki about he is really meant to be a bridge. this is a strategy that is desied to reduce the power of the insurgency while we build up the afghan national security rces. >> reporter: president oma has saidfghanistan is a war th u.s. mt win, but he may caught between his mitary commanders and growi opposition to the war at he. white house officials say any decision ocomb forces is still months away. jim miklaszewski, nbc news, the pentagon. >>> when we come back, somof the many americans who are taking time out to make a diffence where they live. p

as more suected al qaeda and talin leaders are targeted and killed? and we'll asse this week's young report on thear ga, which charges at conduct by isra and the palestinian militants amounted to wa crimes. joining us once again caa roins, deputeditorial page editor of "the n york times" and david andelmana former reign correspondent for "the neyork times" and cbs news, annow editor of world policy journal. good tsee both of yo welcome to the progr. >> thanks for having us. >> thank you. >>hat are theigtories this week, presidt obama's reversal on the miile defee shield for cenal eastern europe. give us your sensef whatow to yao think went intohis inking on making that change. >> well, really, i thk a lot had to do looking at realies of the situaon on the ground and the realitys that the ssile defense pla -- msile defense shield as planned probably wouldn'have done anything. it would have been aother one of theseort of absystems that stawar systems, if you will, neverble to shoot down ything. the techlogy has been move, no question about that. in poli

so that when forceleave, that contry n survive, in this case, ghanistan on its own andnot bring the talinback in so it's securit it's governance andn the case of afghanistan, it al means the training of its my and police. gwen: that'what the 40,000 troops would be r. >> that's rit, they would be part of that. that's one end of the spectrum. the other is counrterrorism. at's a much more lited approa. that calls f using drones and other itelligent-gatheri apparatuto monitor the situation. the idea being there thathe united states can on do so much, that maybee shouldn't be in the busess of nation building. it's considered a moreimited approach, but also deands far less toops and is less stly. both imptant factors given the poll numbers swing the american public is not eager about th war and the economic reities that the nation is facing. anso what is happening in washington nowis the debate out where the administratio wants to fall that spectrum. six nths ago, they indicate they were movingloser to counterinsurgenc the general, t commander there went to afghanistan with that expectation. i

how people d't have employment opportunitys so ny many cases ey take ten bucks a die fight for the talin. or they turn the taliban to judicate their distes because e police dandbribes before they' investigate a crime. so in some ways, the actual challenge fixing the governme, we don't have to create an ideal gernment there in the minds of many people, it's sply to create an adnistration that's better than thetaliban's. and i should add that when go and travel through afghanistan-- which ie now donthree times thisear and talked to people at aocal lel-- i am surprised by the dege of public support out there for international forces for even legitite afghan military forces to co androtect the people. they jusfeel like nobody's protecting them. so in the absence of any authorit they're turningto the taliban because they have no choice. and they're fill with fear. >> rose:isten to this. ational security advisor jim jones, geral jim jes said sunday that mcchrystal's asssment will "be analyzed as to whether it is in sync wh th strategy that t president annound in march. as if the psident had a

sent 65,000 ground combat troops to help e afghan government take on the indigenous islamt group, the talinyesterday, jointhiefs chairman mike mullen testified the r was essential to preven ahanistan from again becoming a safe haven r terror groups ke al qaeda. and today, aeaked draft administration dument on "evaluating progress in afghanistan-pakista underscored thapoint. it cited as objective 1. disrupt terrist networks in ghanistan and especially pakistan to degrade anability they ha to plan and launch international terrorist atcks. but inn opinion piece in today's "washingtopost," entitled "whs afraid of a terroristafe haven?" former cia counterterror officialaul pillar dismissed that ratiole for the war, cling it a "flaw assumption." to takup the safe havens issue, paul pillar joins us. he's now at georgetn university. along with: reuelerecht a former case oicer at the cia he is currently a senio fellow with thfoundation for dense of democracis. thank you t-- thank you both for being here. paul pillar, so, begning with you, you caed it a flat sumption, the very assumpti and objecve th

tonight: ngerous reporting and the afteath of a britisrescue attempt of two journalists held by the talininfghanistan. we begin wh this report from andrew thos of independent television new >>eporter: initially it seemed hero and necessary but questions are being out about the way they werit was wis and whether e journalists were recklessor putting them in danger in the fit place. this is what they itially had come to see: the site a nato tack on a fuel tanker which had beenijacked by the taliban. overnight stephen farrl had written anccount of his ordeal in which he defends the desion to make the trip. on the "new york times" wesite he admits that whehe and afghanournalist sultan munadi first got near the site of t na attack, sultan began talkg to the police and gleaned at it was not safe to go off the highway to the si. t the following day they wen anyway. i checked with sultan and t driver to e if they felt safe going there anthey said it seemed all right >> reporter: at the rivebank wherthe destroyed fuel tankers were, the journalists bega interviewing locs. theyere initially keen to