during the war. one wrote, can i help with planning for your postwar germany? that is the sort of thinking that was going on about germany. another extraordinary case, you'll have seen this film in which tom cruise is made to play a german aristocrat. what are they going to do next? elton john as an actor renna? -- as anna karenina? it seems to me to argue something is going bury badly wrong. it is understandable, but what if we are going to been array churchill, he should have seen much further ahead. as things were, what he did see was in england in close alliance with the united states. it is true to say that he got out of it what for us was a privileged existence. the england in which i grew up was remarkably prosperous. it seemed to be doing very, very well. suddenly, in comparison with the rest of europe, it went down. you'll remember in the 1970's when you looked at to passport and felt dread traveling to somewhere in continental europe. obviously i am not blaming churchill for that, but i thi

and certainly the south wins the war of how the civil war gets taug. by the 1880s white southerners are in control of how the civil war gets taught. and by the 1880s the war is being taught that it's not about slavery. it's not about these slave-owning secessionists who want to control and expand slavery. it's abo these larger economic forces. the agrarian south and the combative industrial north. aggressive combative industrial north. it was about white southerners simply seeking to protect their land. it's a war of northern aggression. the northerners were really the aggressive ones. whereas, when the war broke out, every republican understood that the southerners were committing treason. they were taking up arms against the united states but by 1880, the general history of the war was it was about these larger economic forces. no one was morally to blame. the confederates were these noble, heroic people so were the union soldiers so the war gets cast like essentially a national super bowl. and in many respects it's how the war continues to get circu

four times during e war. there is another paradox of what became known as the fidel ofhe kemp better see. avery had only a small place in that. don't get me wrong, it's a man got rich in atlanta he bought land and the bought slaves. still,tlanta was different from many places in the self. there railroad town was an industrial center. skilled labor was very valuable in high demand. manylaveholders actually trained their slaves in crafts in order to hire out their time to factories or industrial shops and in some cases, they en allod the bondsman to rent their labor in return for which they only ask that the bondsman pay rent, a monthly fee and was then able to keep the rest of whatever he earned. in otheror, you might be a slave, but you could still go to a job like alst anyonelse, except as a slave, it was illegal for you to have an education, and you had no true freedom. wives and husbands were sold a part, children were sold out of families. if a black man was caught writing a carriage through town carrying

against the french but both the wars of reform and the wars against the french were mostly drill wars on both sides coming really savage. you took a bunch of prisoners and you shot them. on the united states side, and you mentioned a few of them, ulysses s. grantas a the tenet down there and to comfit shman was in california and robert e. lee was one of scott poche engineers and had been and this whole roster of junior officers who become generals and u.s. civil r so you get a little of that on the mexican side but most of them came little later. the three reasons the united states, ifou could s it won the war, i am not really sure it did, but the weakness of the mexican side and secondly the superiority of the united states field artillery which was the best in the world at that time afd looked at the devastation it wreaked on both sides in the civil war. the third was these west pnt graduates who will field company ade officers. the generals rolling confident, whether they were politically appointed or not because the ones thatad been in the army in careers were mock the terralex of

have led to war. chamberlain himself felt danzig 95% german and 350,000 people should be returned to germany, rather than be a cause of war. and now the poles got their -- british war guarantee which was the greatest blunder in british history, the british empire nation saying, if hitler attacks poland, which they couldn't save and they had -- british had no plan to save, we will go to war on behalf of poland. thus giving polish colonels a junta of polish colonels the power to bring the british empire and nation into war. . . >> i am afraid i must reject absolutely everything you said there. [applause] four-star, himself acknowledged that and it was not the point, it was just an excuse. he was interested in occupying poland as a later springboard for the invasion of the soviet union, and it was the first stage in the east. apart from that, the whole idea that the nazi offer to poland was in any way any sort of guarantee, the polls it were not tempted for a moment. they knew perfectly well what hitler

never again, war.ank. -- thank you. >> we invite now miss angela merkel, the chancellor of the federal republic of germany. >> mr. president, prime minister, colleagues, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen today, 70 years ago, a most tragic chapter in the history of europe was ushered in by the german attack against poland. this board broad and as a role -- immeasurable suffering for many people. yet brought years of that provision -- it brought years of deprivation, of humiliation, and of destruction. no other country suffered as long under german occupation in history as poland. particularly about part-time is that we're talking about, the city -- the country was devastated. cities were destroyed. there was hardly any building left that was not in ruins. lawlessness and violence characterized daylight, and hardly any polish town was spare this experience. garrett westerplatte, high as german chancellor remember the fate of all poles on whom untold suffering was inflicted under the criminal german occu

of wars of world war ii.here at westerplatte. the symbol of heroic resistance against overwhelming force. several hundred kilometers from here is the town that was the first to be bombed. over 1,000 people were killed. it is another symbol. a symbol of the total character of this war. over two generations have passed but this war continues to demand reflection. and now the question arises, what caused it? it is certain that it was totalitarianism and rule of law and socialism. it is certain that the order that set in in europe after world war i, the so-called versailles order was the first, although short-lived attempt to construct peace on our continent and in the world. the treaty of versailles opened the road for independence for poland but also lithuania, latvia, astonia, hungary, finland, czechoslovakia and then yugoslavia and within using slovenia, latvia, and it included the sovereignty of nations and the protection of minorities. it turned out to be that way for several reasons but not for the reasons

war i. pinpricks of military attacks around the periphery of hitler's fiefdom, norway, greece, sicily, and an obsession, an attempt to launch an attack on the japanese from the northern tip of sumatra that he comes back to again again, completely opposed by the british military. you cannot win a war by this version is an. it is not possible. to win a war, you have to concentrate forces. world war ii was not one by dispersion is some. it was won by the concentration of forces east of the soviet union and the concentration by the western powers from normandy on lawrence on the western side -- from normandy on board on the western side. it did not and could not win wars. but the failure to concentrate resulted in procrastination over the second front. churchill would have had it postponed until 1945 if the americans had not insisted that we have a second front in 1944. the delay created by this massive this person campaign cost time and lives. the last year of the war, 10 million lives were los

on this war. this war of necessity, what's happening now in washington and all these assessments. we're trying to answer very basic questions, "what is the goal? what is the strategy? how do you implement the strategy?" so, even though we call it a war of necessity, i don't think it's ever been treated at a war of necessity, even now. that debate is just starting, in year eight of the war. it's extraordinary. >> moyers: things just seem to be going off the rails there. is that your judgment, too? >> i think... remember that president obama sent 21,000 more troops, and what happened was the united states expanded its reach. now, you ask the afghans, they'll say that when u.s. troops show up, more problems show up for us. because then the fight starts. >> moyers: they're caught in the middle. >> that's right. then they are caught in the middle. i mean, when you go to afghanistan, the afghans are not trying to work with karzai, embrace their new democracy. they're trying to survive within the confine

civil war. you get a ll of that on the mexican side, but, most of them cut their teeth a little later. the three reasons the united states, if you can state won the war, i'm not thature it did. but the oz organization and the weakness on the mexican side and second the superiority of the u.s. field artillery which was the best in the world at that time. and look at the devastation it wreaked on both sides in the civil war and the third was these west point graduates who were field and company grade officers, and the generals wer all incompetent, whether they were politically appointed or not. because ones who had been theron, with careers were moth eaten old relics of the war of 1812. and really not up to this. they got themselves mired in politics, taylor especially. about, something west pointeders learned a lesn from this. politic and military service don't mix. and high didn't understand that and politically interfered with the army every day. and, really threatened the saty of the -- americ

the holocaust was the crime that was committed during that war, but before, the outbreak of war betweenermany and soviet union, other crimes were committed. that account also calls for reflection, not so much because facts which are mostly non today, but the causes should be discussed. why several dozens of thousands of officers of polish army and others were sentenced to death? this was a token of revenge for 1920, for the fact that poland withstood the aggression of 1920. it could be claimed that is communism that is to blame. no, this time it was chauvinism. at that stage, the communist system had this characteristic trade, and that pact was not concluded in good faith. either party wanted to outfox the other. stalin thought that the germans would bleed out, fighting them british and french, and then fall easy prey to the soviet union, while hitler counted on a quick defeat in the west while staying safe in the east for the time being. but both sides made a mistake, and the war that ensued caused many, many russians, ukrainians, but russians, georgians, and others to fall. we have ab

took place -- took -- broke out against the war -- against the war -- against small wars. i, it is frightening but countries order -- by superpowers against big countries against us and united nations ordered security council did not take actions to stop these wars and agregs in violation of the charter of the united nations against small nations and small people and the general assembly will lsh will -- will -- will -- will vote for these historic resolutions. either we continue together as one nation or we go into -- break into two. have its own general assembly, its own security council. belonging to it where they have equal footings, standing on equal footings or -- and the big countries who have permanent seats who have the rights will stay in their own councils whether they are 43 and they should -- decide against themselves and this is not about interests. and this day, if they want to stay in permanent seats, okay, that's okay, but permanent is threat for our neighbor we should never stay under the supervision or control of the veto and the right to veto to give to

in the mid 1930's so 15 o20 years after the war is over.s a result many americans lieve that the united states should never have gotten involved in the last world war, that they were deceived into it, that the united states has no real national interests in its of this commission their response to the world crisis of the 1930's. so that they believe since the last war was a mistake getting into the next world r ll also be a mistake so that there is about world war i really influence the way americans interpret the crises in europe and asia in the late 1930's. >> host: then faingn that, i'd thinke said even in the book even as recent as, as late rather as 1941, right, britain standing alone against hitler and what wast, 80 something% of theountry was still opposed to american participation in the war? is that right? how much of that sentiment would you say have to do with this kind of conspiratorial thinking and sense of the recent history? >> guest: i think a lot of it did because people believed that the united states had got involved in t

that was two months before we declared war on germany in world war one. trevor gardner was a boiler maker in south america. he came here when he was a young man and went through cal tech and got educated here. there was also a brilliant mathematician with a mind that was second only to einstein. he developed the first electronic computer and develop stored programming for the computer. he came here as a refugee from nazism. he had enormous prestige from world war ii. he developed the explosive wrapper around the plutonium bomb. he played a critical part in building the atomic bomb in the manhattan project. bernard recruited him for the program. >> let me read ahead. they had been told by the national security staff that they were restricted to half an hour for the three presentations. who was he? >> he was the head of the air force. he had been the deputy at the strategic air command. he was the guy that flew over tokyo during the famous firebombing. he was the deputy commander of the sac. he was a protege. he was not locked in. bernard had recruited him.

this is not the president that launched the so-called war on terror.is focus is now afghanistan and improving relations with the muslim world. the strategy is different. the language is similar. >> the men and women who lost their lives eight years ago leave a legacy that still shines brightly in the darkness. it calls on all of us to be strong and firm and united. it is our calling today and on all of the septembers' still to come. >> today was called a day of remembrance. beyond the remember this, there is some bewilderment and anger about the lack of development at ground zero. eight years after the attacks, this is the only visible sign of any progress. next year, they will gather as today in a building site. one day, there will be a lasting memorial here, but no time soon. >> authorities in pakistan are saying they have struck an important blow against the taliban. they say they arrested five senior militants who have been leading an uprising in the northwest district of swat. each had a reward on their heads of more than $120,000. the bbc has thi

you've lost dhe war. 's a pity that the populist could not draw upon the memory of jones county in terms of interracial collaboration b i was ndering about the internal warfare within like kentucky and missoi to determine whether theyould succeed remaiin the union was that due to anti-slavery unionism? gooduestion so the border states of kentucky and missouri in pticular. why didhey choose to remain in the uon? i should first say that the guerrilla wfare in ssouri was extraordinary. there were large numbers of miourians who formed confederate cpanies. jesse james who became a cult hero is still a cult hero for many people he's a confederate thug in missouri who is defending the confederacy. the main reason tt missouri staysn the union are one reason. there are a number of reasons. one is that the politicians undersnd that they are better protected by staying in the union. slavery not as quite essential anens institution in kentucky as it isn se mississippi. it was confliced. and in fact a scholar who we'v

let there be a civil war in iraq. let everyone have a civil war. who said that if taliban becomes in government that would have a nuclear weapon or missiles? those airplanes that hit new york, this very same place, did they take off from afghanistan or iraq? no. these planes were in jfk airport. how can they go and hit afghanistan? they are not afghan. they're not taliban. they're not iraqis. how come we keep that quiet? we should never be different. we are committed to peace, world peace and security. we want to save mankind and humanity. we should also open investigations of the assassinations. we want to know how and african liberator -- hal and african liberator and leader was assassinated -- we want to know how and african liberator and leader was assassinated. he was assassinated, he was killed. we want to know the facts about that. this should be reopened again. who bombed the airplane in 1962, 1961? [unintelligible] the secretary-general of the united nations had his airplane bomb. and the killing of kennedy and 63 -- 1963 or 1962 -- we wan

you don'feel the war. and i don'know what that feelinis supposed to be, but you would think that you wou el the impact of engaging in two wars. and you don't feel it. it's so distant. 's so, almost academic. so, ybe humanitizing it or putting a na on it is the wrong way. there mu be some way to make people realize what th country's asked its serviceman. there's a solemn oatwe make wi the troops that we won't send them into w unless it's absolute necessary. wewn part of that decision. and so, in a wayas a jonalist, it bothers me when you don'feel that in the city, inhe nation's capital, where these decisions are beinmade. >> moys: what about at the pentagon? you spenyour days there, every week now. what's t sense there? do they grasp what happening to men like lance corpor bernar >> i don't know. you kn, when i go there again, it's so rtified because of security meares. during vietnam, ople would row blood on the steps, and you would feel the ang about the war. you know, people think othe pentagons this big

almost everybody supported -- it is hard for me to think of another war other than world war ii that was as popular with the american people. unfortunately what has happened in the yours since then is -- in the years since then we've seen declining support because it has turned out to be tougher and longer than anticipated. but we need to keep sight of where we were there and the reasons haven't changed since 2001. what we are trying to do is stabilize a country that was a launching pad for the most devasta devastating terror attacks over launched against anybody and certainly the most devastating against american soil. that is why unfortunately our soldiers are being called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in some situations because they are fighting to defend us. and we don't have the luxury of only fighting on our shores. we have to pursue a forward strategy that engages enemies before had he show up in new york or washington or other metropolitan centers of the united states. host: next is southampton, pennsylvania. john, republican liene. caller: this gentleman is delusional.

back in the vietnam war -- i am an old war veteran. russia and china have always supported these people. they always will. do you think it is possible to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? guest: that is the $64,000 question. how much leverage do we have over the iranians? the answer is i do not know. those who follow it closely or more closely than i do also do not know. what is clear is that we're not

guest: i think war is awful. we fought in two world wars. does that mean you favor war? of course not. war is horrible. one has to release try to explain what is happening in a war and there are many complex on the horizon. host: the top u.s. commander at in afghanistan is very seriously concerned over reports civilians may have died in an air strike against hijacked fuel tankers. general mcchrystal discussed the incident with the afghan president. we have talked about this over the past hour, but when the general weighs in on this it changes the equation. guest: i think he is right that we should try to minimize the civilian casualties as much as possible. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. we appreciate having you for this hour. our guest has been arnaud de borchgrave. key is the editor at large for "washington times." coming up next we have eric olson. we will talk about food safety. coming up later in the program, kevin carrey joins us to talk about the new college guide. on newsmakers this week we have wayne clough. he talks about how yowould likeo

it's a war. it is the war he campaigned on.e said in march that it was crucial that we win afghanistan not only for u.s. national security but for global security. he should be able to find the time to make this decision. bret: charles is, there any way in your mind that this administration signs on to a surge of that size in afghanistan? >> if that's what the general has asked, the president will have to say yes. this is a rookie who has no experience in this, and if it were an eisenhower in the white house, he could tell the generals that number is too high. i have experience in the second world war. obama will say i was a community organizer and those numbers are too high. i think not. democrats have a reputation of being soft on national security. that's why they sinically inflated the importance of afghanistan when they campaigned in '04 and '08 knowing their heart was not really in

to turn two european wars into world wars. so germany might be destroyed. both times churchill succeeded. and history records that those wars, that together took the lives of perhaps 100 million europeans, were the mortal blows that advanced the death of the west. it was winston churchill who led the west in its advance to barbarism. as first lord on the first days, he instituted a starvation blockade that violated all of the rules of warfare, including those advocated by lord salisbury that brought death to 100 times as many german civilians as those killed by the army. churchill's purpose, was, he said hymns, quote, the start of the whole population, men and women and children, old and young and wounded and found and into submission. four months after germany laid down its arms in 1919, the starvation blockade remained in force. and churchill rose in parliament to exalt, we're enforcing the blockade with rigor. and germany is near starvation. that led to hitler. in the n-1920, a secretary for war, churchill enraged by iraqi

afghanistan was the good war. it didn't have initially the controversy that surrounded the iraq invasion. >> i'm not surprise upon pts it's purely political and you have a democratic president and he's suddenly against the war. >> a lot of republicans supported the war. >> sure. that was the position. >> is it hard for the american media to stay interested in a war that's dragged on now for more than eight years? >> absolutely not. what the marines and the soldiers are going through there, what the afghan people have gone through is so overwhelming. >> do the marines feel ignored that they don't -- do they feel thir fighting and in some cases dying. the marines are living without electricity, without water and food? are you kidding? they don't have any idea what the media is doing. it doesn't factor through their daily life just getting through each day is so hard that that's the challenge. >> as you say, it's hard even with the best writers and best television reporters to convey that reality. it's over 100 degre

congress never declared it a war.echnically we are still in an armistice and technically that conflict is still underway. >> whatever you choose to call it, the fighting raged for three long years. much of it in the bitter cold. >> at the korean war veterans memorial, 19 bronze statues represent the different military services that took part in the conflict. >> they're slightly larger than life-size. to show and to depict the hazards the tough conditions that american soldiers experienced during the korean conflict. >> the memorial has another striking feature --a massive wall of black granite. look closely and you'll see etched images. you'll also see your reflection in its polished surface. so there's a dual focus there with the idea that you can see yourself in this situation. see yourself in this conflict -- so as to bring the visitor much closer to what's going on. >> the effect definitely draws visitors in. ' >> the wall that had all of the people etched in. it was really, really cool. >> the korean war was the

was a mistake getting into the next world war will also be a mistake so the theories about world war i influence the way americans and interpret the crises in europe and asia in the late 1930's. >> host: following from that i think he said even in the book even as recent, as lake rather is 1941, right but standing alone agast hitler what was it 80% of the country was still opposed tomerican partipation in the war. is that right? how much of that sentiment would you say had to do wh this kind of conspiratorl thinking and sense of the recent history? >> guest: i think a lot of it did because people believed that the united states had gotten involved because of a financial interest that wanted to support britain for their own financial gain so they believe that the second world war was a replay of the last and they did not make allowance for the fact that hitler was not the kaiser and they saw, they d not bieve the united states had an international interest in getting involved in world war ii. >> host: so at that point then, how were these conspiracy theories spread among the polation?

bush war. the problem with allies of present and the bomb -- many of you don't like, and don't want to hear much good about him. in fact, some folks get angry if you say positive things about mr. obama. that could complicate matters. take the european missile deal. this is what barack obama told me last september. >> the russians are playing the game when they pretend but mitchell's shield against their assets. it is defensive. >> you are going to keep it? >> given what has happened in georgia, i think we have to send a clear signal that poland and other countries in that region are not going to be subject to intimidation. >> getting this on record -- record, if you are elected president you are keeping the missile shield in poland. >> i believe it is a program. i want to assure it works. now the president will change its mind and mood defensive missiles away from russia a closet to iran. there are few places you or you can go for honest analysis. i think fox news is one of the places and our r

right war.hit us. al qaeda hit us, sheltered by the taliban, we've got to resource properly what we do in afghanistan. here he is as president biting off a huge task of counterinsurgency and nation building where we don't have a strong central government that isn't corrupt. it makes it longer -- >> this is the part of politics i don't like in war. the president's like nixon and i hold this against nixon, not only the bed, dirty tricks, i heard about that in politics. but keeping us in a war that was pretty clear we were going to lose by after '68 that we were definitely in a holding action and 37,000 guys killed because we're in a holding action. without a real mission of victory of any kind. roger, is there a mission that's realizable here in a reasonable amount of time and reasonable amount loss of life? and if there isn't, why are we there? >> i don't know the answer to that. i fear there may not be. i don't know what a reasonable loss of life is. the dilemma if you will is having destroyed a

so about 15 colin 20 years after the war is over. and as aesult, many americans believe that the united states should have never gotten involved in the last world war, that they were deceived into it, that the united states had no real national interest in it and so the condition is the response to the wor crisis of the 1930's so that they belie since the last war was a mistake geing into the next war would also be a miske. so the furiousbout world war i really influence the way americans interpret the crises in europe and asia in the late 1930's. >> host:nd then falling from that, i think you said even in the book as recent as late rather, as 1941, right? britain is sort of standing alone against hitler and what was it, 80 something% of the country was still opposed to american participation in the war; is that right? so how much of that sentiment we use a had to do with ts kind of conspiratorial thinking and since of the recent history? >> host: i think lot of it did because people believe the united states got involved in the war

this is a civilized war. these are prisoners of war in a civilized country. the international llamaw -- how could be sentenced to death and hanged? are they a member of the judicial system? do you know what the other people say? they say the american president are invading the mosques and have already put to death of president of iraq. why did they not uncover their faces? why do we not know their ranks? is he an officer? who is he? how come up president of the country, a member state is sentenced to death and killed? we do not know the identity. the united nations has a duty to answer these questions. who has implemented the death sentence? they should have the legal status and responsibility. we should know their responsibility. there should be a doctor. there should be all of the legal procedures in place for a layman, let alone the president of a member state in the united nations. that he should be put to death in such a way. this is the iraqi war point number three. it is the of a great situation. that is a disgrace to mankind. -- is the abu ghraib situ

in respect of alleged war crimes committed by t... b the isra defense force it was a lot mo complicated. there were 36 incidents wead to look into. some of them diuted. many nnot be disputed. but, you know, i don't belie thaone can sort of count words count chapters d ay, well, the report deals in x-number of pes or x-number of words with ckets and ortars in comparison into the numbeof pages or chapters dealing with israe violatns. >> ifill: you saythat you investigated 36 separate incidents. without irael's cooperation in get to gothe bottom of his, how culd you reach a fair conclusion? >> well, wead a lot of informati to go o we were in gaza for a numb of das. we were able to see with our n eyes what physical damage was done. were able to hear and e many ofhe victims who were affected by t. i'm talking about a lot of women and children and men wh lost loved es, who re injured themsves. they know what happed to them. we were able to make an aessment of the credibility wh which they spoke to u and we had a lot of infoation that came f

and still to come on the newshour tonight, wavering support for the afghan war; charges of war crimesin the gaza conflict; and tanzania's doctor shortage. that follows the trade tug-of- war between the u.s. and china. it's over tire imports. jeffrey brown has the story. >> brown: the president's appearance before big labor today came just days after a set of trade sanctions announced by his administration brought praise from unions, and reproach from free trade advocates. late friday, the u.s. said it would impose a 35% tariff on chinese-made tires. that followed a complaint by the steelworkers union, contending that chinese imports are flooding the market and have led to the loss of some 5,000 american jobs. yesterday the chinese government warned it might retaliate against american auto and poultry exports, and said it would bring its own complaint to the world trade organization. we explore this trade tiff and its potential consequences now with congressman sander levin of michigan, a democrat who chairs a key trade subcommittee. and daniel price, an attorney here in washington who

i think all wars are worth of toys. -- a war of choice.i think we can avoid most, if not all, wars. host: bill is joining us from north carolina. you say it is a war of necessity. why is that? caller: we are still battling radical islam and unfortunately, the taliban is mobilizing and trying to reinforce sharia law. we have to recognize that they're using afghanistan and pakistan as a refuge for the radical element for pakistan as a nuclear power. we have to try to show that we can win this war. otherwise, you know, we will possibly be slipping back and creating a worse situation with a nuclear power. host: what you think is a long term solution? caller: i guess, taking old and trying to change the attitude of the afghans. i just wish the president obama would take more serious -- a more serious position because general mcchrystal has been asking for troops. bush, when he asked for a kitchen sink, he would throw two of them. but obama is saying, well, let me get back with you. i do not believe he should be leaving our men and women in unif

he said this is not a war of choice. this is a war of necessity. he laid down all these markers. the question is barack obama, if he doesn't believe in is a winnable war, is he a big enough man to say we are going to turn around and walk out the way reagan did after he put the marines in beirut and they got killed but he came out. >> we made the right decision in the second instance. here is secretary of state hillary clinton, his former rival. i think she is putting up a situation he is going to have to contend with. here is secretary clinton. >> some people say well al qaeda is no longer in afghanistan. if afghanistan were taken over by the taliban, i can't tell you how fast al qaeda would be back in afghanistan. >> she is his ally, top foreign policy minister. she is dictating policy. i'm not being tough, just stating the facts. how does he respond? >> i don't think she made a secret out of what she thinks. this is a very difficult situation. what general mcchrystal calls for is nation building. the president ought to consider that very carefully. the way to win is not to kill

we try to make meaning out of war. archibald macleish, the great american poet, lost a brother, younger brother in world war i, and he is buried in one of our cemeteries at flanders' fields. and archibald macleish in dealing with that grief wrote a poem but his last lines are very meaningful to me. and he said about the yong did they say we leave you our death, give them their meaning. i think that is what we are all about, mr. chairman. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. secretary. next witness is mr. metzler. your statement is entered in the hearing record and you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today on behalf of the secretary of the army in support of arlington national cemetery. it is an honor for me to represent arlington national cemetery, our nation's premier cemetery. with me today is the deputy secretary of the army for personnel oversight. the management of arlington national cemeter

that they're not even allowed to call a war. to examine all of this we're joined tonight from washington, d.c., by anthony cordesman. he's with the center for strategic and international studies. thank you very much for joining us on the program. >> a pleasure. >> so the president said this weekend that he is studying his strategic options in afghanistan before deciding whether or not to send additional troops there. what do you think his options are? >> i think this is more a political statement than real. the president has appointed a new commander, a new ambassador. the actual strategic options were ready at the end of july. there are some choices in terms of the level of troops he might commit relative he really has only one seof options at this point. he can either provide the ambassador and the commander with the resources necessary to implement the strategy that they have requested, or, given the unpopularity of the war both in the u.s. and as, and the fact that we have an ongoing crisis in military terms, his choices are

have the media given the afghan war the kind of coverage it deserves? >> i think so, i think all of this recent sort of turn on a dime to, is the afghan war really necessary now? which happened in a matter of weeks. i think really shows how easily led mainstream media is. you know, this hesitancy on the part of obama and this week's document really telegraphed to the mainstream press, maybe we should abandon the war now very quickly. and so, i think that the coverage is good, but i think that they're focusing on do we send more troops, do we not send more troops? that's not really the right question. >> july and august, very bloody months or at least the bloodiest of this war so far and yet, compared with vietnam, relatively small in number. the enemy, you know, clearly knows that americans read newspapers and they don't like to see troop losses rise. >> well, and that's the whole point of a counter insurgency is to drive your enemies to withdraw their troops, withdraw their effort. we actually-- david winn in afghanistan for many, many weeks, he just g

iraq was the war of... pardon me afghanistan was the war of necessity and iraq was the war of choice. and so even on the campaign trail he said afghanistan needed more troops, afghanistan needed more resources. when he took office, within a month, in february of this this year, he dispatched 21,000 additional military personnel to afghanistan. now he faces this position. if he were to then sort of pull back and say "look, i don't think continuing on this way makes sense," he opens himself up to a lot of criticism from the right that he's essentially flip-flopd from what he was saying during the campaign. >> rose: i come back to this, too. general mcchrystal was given the responsibility by the president to go over there and give him his assessment and he told the general "i'll give you all the resources you need" i.e. in terms of the smartest people in the government to do this. and then he today him... general mcchrystal said i'm going to reach out and get a whole bunch of people from academia and counterin

two days later, england and france declared war on germany. the second world war had begun. at a quarter to five this morning, the same time that germany attacked, poland marked the anniversary of the invasion and honor the heroes. hear, polish troops were outnumbered 15 to one but they held out for a week before surrendering. it was not just the german aggression, it was also the attacks from the soviet union which followed two weeks later. >> and then came september 17th, the day when the germans were repelled. it was on the state that poland received a stab on the back from russia. >> for poland, this was a chance for them to honor their hero and to commemorate what happened 70 years ago. later, this became an international commemoration, an opportunity for former enemies and allies to give their thoughts on the second world war. from 20 countries, they gathered at the cemetery for the defenders. a joint sign of the respect for the sacrifice made by poland. germany has apologized many times for the war. angela merkel did so today. >> i mourn the loss of lives. there are n

every one of my uncles served in world war ii. the media today is full of stories of how desperate the situation is in afghanistan. i grew up with four or five newspapers all of which have a story on page one about how bad things are in afghanistan. you can take the word afghanistan out of the article and two years ago the word would have been iraq. guess what? the r in iraq, soldiers, sailors won that war. you would not know that from the mediaecause as soon as the war turned around they stopped covering it. to day a the bad news is coming out of afghanistan. i would like to remind young people who didn't have the blessing i did with parents from the greatest generation, in world war ii, i was going to be here tonight, i went back and checked on this day in 1942, the first american offensive of world war ii, pearl harbor had been bombed seven monthsefore. america lost everything will battle iwas in until the battle of midway. every single battle was a disaster. by june, when midway is won, a naval battle, naval air battle, by jun

israel and the palestinian militants amounted to war crimes. joining us once again carla robbins, deputy editorial page editor of "the new york times," and david andelman, a former foreign correspondent for "the new york times" and cbs news, and now editor of world policy journal. good to see both of you. welcome to the program. >> thanks for ha >> what are the big stories this week, president obama's reversal on the missile defense shield for central eastern europe. give us your sense of what you think went into his thinking on making that change. >> well, really, i think a lot had to do looking at realities of the situation on the ground and the reality is that the missile defense plan -- missile defense shield as planned probably wouldn't have done anything. it would have been another one of these sort of abm systems that star war systems, if you will, never able to shoot down anything. the technology has been moving, there's no question about that. in political terms without question a lot of the central europeans, particularly the polish p

p.o.w.amps were norl in the war and forced labor camps came intolay as the war economy got going and they started running out of workers and then tre were various specialized smaller categories of camps for their own special purpose >> host: but, nobody in charge berlin, who was in charge of setting all these up? >>uest: no, of run by differ bureaucracies. as a matter of fact it was in a sense part of the nis system for each beaurocracy to want to have its own camps. wd d't he firm evidence of this but i think this was something tt for a lot of nazi bureaucrats indicated that they had power. i have my own body of prisoners herehat i control and i have my own purpose for which i have camps. >> host: whator the first camps tt the nazis developed? >> guest: these are what historians called the early camps. they were developeamong ad hoc basis by local authnrities and in some cases the ess or the locapolice to handle political isoners, communists and socialists especially at the beginning, people that the nazis contend-- considered archenemies and were determine to eliminate. theyid not

they won the war in iraq. soldiers, sailors cordesman and marines of the united states of america won that war and yet you would not know that from the media because as soon as the war turned around thstop covering and today all the bad news is coming out of afghanistan. i would like to remind young peop who dt have the blessing that i did it grow up with parents and the greatest generation that in world war ii, and i went back and check because they knew what was going to be here tonight, i went back and check on this day in94 the operation, the first american offensivef world war -- remember pearl harbor had been bombed seven nths before. america lost every single battle it was then up until june, the battle of midway, every single battle was a disaster. by june when the midway is one and the naval air battle, by june tens of thousands of americans were dead. not just that pearl harbor but all across the pacific ocean. americans were dying on the beaches of tienda who were laing with the canadians and the br

world war ii, lincoln, at the time we had the civil war, washington at the revolutionary war, and ourreat leaders never went to the politics of fear. they had the politics of hope. we're going to do better. we're going to come together. americans accept a challenge and we move on from here. it's the politics of fear that i think has been dominated the last four years. and that has been something, it's karl rove's mantra to win politic elections. and that, i think, eventually catches up. >> this administration feels it's above the law and the american people and our constitution pay the price. there is no accountability. there is no oversight. >> in the united states senate, when we go back over the last couple months, the two constitutional issues that we'll be facing is the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage and constitutional amendment on flag burning. in order to whip up the base. whip up their base, trying to get them out, rather than dealing with the kinds of challenges that people are concerned about today. and that is the cost of gasoline prices, the explosion in ter

but polls show support for the war decreasing. the chairman of the joint chiefs, this country's top officer, told congress today that more u.s. forces in afghanistan are probably required. but afghanistan isn't the only battleground in the fight against extremists and terrorism. there are developments as well tonight in pakistan and somalia. all of this is how we start with tonight's lead focus. intelligence officials have described him as one of their most wanted terror suspects, and late yesterday it was reported that saleh ali saleh nabhan was killed in an attack that took place in southern somalia. nabhan, a kenyan with links to al qaeda, was said to be the ringleader of the 2002 bombing of a hotel in the kenyan resort of mombasa. 13 people were killed in the attack. he's also believed to have been behind an attempt to shoot down an israeli airliner that had taken off from the mombasa airport the same day. the rocket missed the airplane. u.s. officials say american forces were involved in yesterday's raid perhaps signaling a n

guest: i think war is awful. we fought in two world wars. does that mean you favor war? of course not. war is horrible. one has to release try to explain what is happening in a war and there are many complex on the horizon. host: the top u.s. commander at in afghanistan is very seriously concerned over reports civilians may have died in an air strike against hijacked fuel tankers. general mcchrystal discussed the incident with the afghan president. we have talked about this over the past hour, but when the general weighs in on this it changes the equation. guest: i think he is right that we should try to minimize the civilian casualties as much as possible. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. we appreciate having you for this hour. our guest has been arnaud de borchgrave >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the british ambassador for health and life sciences talks about the british health- care system. mose schwartz discusses a report that says civilian contractors in afghanistan now out no. 8 u.s. troops. then, an exploration of five cities in their pla

iraq was the war of... pardon me ghanistan was the war of necessity and iraq was the war of choice. and so even on theampaign trail he said ahanistan needed more troops, afghanistan needed re resources. when he took office, within a month, in februarof this this year, he dispatched 21,000 addional militar personnel to afghanian. now he faceshis position. if he were to tn sort of pull back and say "look, i don't think ctinuing on this way makes sense," he opens himself up to a lot of criticism from the righ that he'sssentially flip-flopd from wh he was saying during the campaign. >> rose: i comeack to this, o. general mcchrystal was given the responsility by the presint too over there andive him his assessment and he told the geral "i'll give you all the resources you need" i.e. in tes of the smartespeople in the government to do ts. and then heoday him... genal mcrystal said i'm going to reach out anget a whole bunch of people from acamia and counterinsurgency rategies to come in here and help meake my assessment. not just within the military but a lot of her people. they do that an