afghanistan. if they sit down with the chamber of commerce, you not just hear about how many people are killed or how about the security is. people need to see the real afghanistan that is out there. it is going to take some time and some changes in procedure to allow americans better exposure to what the afghan people have to offer. >> i am is visiting scholar. >> from khuzistan. >> yes. -- from a news pakistan. >> is. -- yes. if you read articles in the united states and other countries, they expressed doubt about the achievable goals in afghanistan. how realistic are your goals? there is quite a complicated democratic and civil society within afghanistan. >> i do not expect the international community to come to afghanistan to build democracy in afghanistan. that is not part of the mission. the mission is to defeat terror. the mission is to prevent the imposition of terror and tyranny. it is not to build democracy. we do have to build a pluralistic society in afghanistan. that is what the afgha

when we're fighting them in afghanistan, it's a war. but when they kill 3,000 americans here and go back someplace and they're difficult to get ahold of and move from one country or another. the congress of the united states has authorized the president to kill them or capture them whenever they are because of what they can do to us. that gives us special powers to do that. we believe we're fighting a war against that enemy even though at times it was in iraq, times it was in afghanistan. some of it is in pakistan. some of it is in other places. we believe that meets the definition. >> okay, we're going another question here. >> sure. >> first off i want to thank the panel for speaking to us tonight. and this question is for all three panelists. general mcmaster, you mentioned the necessity to have -- set your objectives ahead of time and presumably that imperative applies to war or states of emergency or whatever conflict and however you describe it. >> in the military, we're going to go no matter what you call it. we're going. [laughi

which is afghanistan. afghanistan if you take a lobe, where is the last place you'd like to be tighting -- fighting war if you had the choice? you might pick afghanistan. land-locked, very great logistics environment. we can't get effective until we get in, we can't get in and get set until we have moved the people and equipment and the means to sustain them through the very center arteries, a couple of ground lines of communications. the air bridge, and so we are working every day to widen those arteries. and i'll give you again an example of the mrap atv, the atv because it's a military piece of equipment, we refer to move by air. and that means flying from charleston, where the government-furnished equipment are installed in the vehicle as they are delivered from oshkosh, flown to kandahar or bagram, there to be married up with a unit and put out in the field. we are in the interest of fielding them more quickly, and being able to use the air bridge for other free up capacity on the air bridge for other

of afghanistan. we're working closely with he and his government. ultimately, as i said last week, this is not about the relationship between president karzai and the united states. this is about the relationship between president karzai, his government, and his people. ultimately, he has to demonstrate leadership and effectiveness to his people. and it's not about us; it's about the basic relationship between the government of afghanistan, the people of afghanistan. they want to see that government perform more effectively and so do we. >> right, p.j., but i -- >> [inaudible] clarifying conversations between clinton and karzai again? >> i'm sure that on a daily basis, we are talking to the afghan government, and if we have sought a further clarification of his remarks over the weekend, i'll let you know. >> it's not -- i mean, it's not really about clarifying comments, is it? are you concerned at all that his -- that he -- his impressions or his -- the way he is approaching his relationship with the

we see the same in afghanistan. and we are checking the situation daily to look at the enemies operations and how the terrain and the weather and the environmental conditions as well as the enemy actions are affecting our soldiers in afghanistan, and we are trying to anticipate that and pass back the necessary changes to our army so that they can improve our equipment. one good example is when we first started sending mraps into afghanistan -- and some of you may know there are probably over 30 different variants of the mrap, but when we first started sending mraps over the largest ones that were most effective in iraq because of the way the enemy was attacking, or very cumbersome on the rough terrain and the terrible roads and afghanistan. they were too top heavy and we were breaking axes. as we look for an alternative and as you recall from this year, m-atv, b mrap maudine-protected vehicle was lighter weight, or satchel, has independent suspension and a number of improvements from the standard mrap that we were u

of course, we have afghanistan on top of that, which is even bigger. just to pause for a moment on the retrograde from iraq , it is not as large in terms of tonnage as was the retrograde from iraq after desert storm, however, it takes place in a -- on a particular timetable, we need to get down to certain level by august. it takes place in hand environment where there is still threat. it goes on while we are continuing to operate. and -- i don't think this is inconsequential, the retrograde from iraq takes place after being there for many years, so this wasn't like checking out of a hotel that you had been in for a short time, as in iraq of a desert storm. this is like leaving a home you've lived in for a while. we were more settled in, more equipment. and -- so we had a lot to do. we started out with 350 fobs in iraq . about a year ago, and we're closing them, getting those numbers down. 147,000 contractors by the way. now down to about 100,000, going down to about 75,000. you know the troop levels will be going down to 50,000. 3.4 million items of eq

to see the real afghanistan. if you sit down with the chamber of commerce of herat, they we complain of our dummy of products and you never think that is possible because all you hear is security, how many people killed for, so all our objective is to broaden the spectrum. for people to be able to see the real afghanistan that is out there, the real-life that is out there. it will need some time. it will take some changes on the procedures to allow americans to have better and more exposure to the afghan people. >> thank you. >> in your wonderful speech -- from is pakistan. in your wonderful speech you mentioned the goal of one of the goal afghanistan is building democracy. but if you read some articles in newspapers, summon houses that unites these and other countries, they expressed some doubt about achievable, these goals are achievable. why -- what do you think about, how israelis, the kind of quite competent democratic and civil society institutions in afghanistan? >> thank you. very good question. i don't e

some of it goes into afghanistan. some of it goes back to the army to be reset back in the depots and then for training. >> could you say how many are being left behind in iraq and will not go on to afghanistan? or is any equipment being left behind for the iraqi security forces? >> there are a number of programs run by the department of defense and the state department driven by what general odm janelle has requested. the total number -- what general odierno has requested. the total number, i do not have that with me. i do not know what the total will be. it will be after we finish some programs. we did take a total with general odierno last year when the iraqis requested equipment. we conducted a number of boards that look at the hot dogs that look at all of that equipment, determine what the costs and benefits are -- we conducted a number of boards that look at the goodman and determine what the cost and benefits are so we can decide what to leave behind. >> could you tell us how it is going with the northern route

so -- and the -- both in iraq and in afghanistan especially, afghanistan at the present time, that they can't get around. can't get around. so those are the more -- i mean, so if one wanted, you know, if one wanted to say, well, you know, do -- does the thoughtful or not so thoughtful reader of american press actually have a sense of what's going on in afghanistan politics? i don't think the answer is yes. the -- but the other feature i want -- and of course, i mean, i'm all for the embedded journalism, but there's only so much that you can learn from a particular perspective in a particular place on the field, and it's good drama, good television, but i don't really think it's key. what is key, for example, is the remarkable fact, i still am really amazed by this, we are presently fighting in iraq under a -- something called a status of forces agreement negotiated by the bush administration, with the maliki administration. while it was being negotiated, it was kept secret from congress. entirely secret from congress. the reason -- i was in basra, and indeed there were two senators, cli

the afghanistan police. about $15 billion has gone toward development across the board. there are issues such as narcotics in afghanistan but we also addressed. all of that is rolled up into this $51 billion. my job is to, in line with the comments made by the ambassador in regards to corruption, my job, as i report directly to the congress of the united states, my job is to ensure that the $51 billion that the united states has invested is being used for the purposes for which it was made available by the american taxpayer, so that we can help said tayeb jawad and others, like this foundation, to carry out what needs to be done it to advance afghanistan and the people. i have had the privilege to work with ambassador jawad, president karzai, the ministers of the government of afghanistan, the leaders of afghanistan fit, and certainly with our own government of the united states, and with other participating nations. this is a partnership that we are in support of. we are going to continue our mission to the

the first atvs arrived in afghanistan in september. and we've already accepted more than 5,000 atvs. and almost 1,000 of them have actually been fielded, that is in the hands of soldiers by now. that's very different from your 10 and 15-year program of record. that's less than a 10-month program of record. vehicles actually fielded and in the hands of the soldiers. initially when we set out to say how many are we going to buy and how many are we going to produce per month, the -- our logicians were saying and the commanders they could only field 500 vehicles per month. the reasons for that are -- you logicians will understand it's for want of a nail phenomenon. you can't bring the vehicles in because you don't have a place to park them. you don't have a place to park them because you don't have the concrete. you don't have the concrete because they don't make concrete in afghanistan. you got to go to pakistan and get your concrete and truck it in. so you have to have the trucks. you have to have the parking lot for a truck and around a

are the indigenous to the afghanistan? and how is it that they're different and how did they give in to be such an oppositional thing to what you describe as the majority? >> well, the taliban and -- it's joining the club of fundamentalism that you believe the afghanistan should be governed by a certain set of laws. they're not only pashtuns and they're forgetting the tajiks and that respects in the other part of the country. you have to ignore borders for a moment and think about in the corner with the pakistan in the corner so they're being fed either from pakistan or growing within afghanistan. they are afghan citizens. by your question really is that they're not popular, how are they in control? they do it, these to send the vietnam war the adjust your preferences at night by coming in and slitting the throat of you or your family and terrorizing you so that if you read david rhodes pieces in "the new york times" after his release and a television had more pan era impulses and also that they were providing goods and se

watch frontline. >> frontline's "the dancing boys of afghanistan" is available on dvd. to order, visit shoppbs.org or call 1-800-play-pbs. captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> frontline is made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. with major funding from the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. additional funding is provided by the park foundation. and by the frontline journalism fund. >> you're watching pbs. >> coming in may. >> we reinvented the university. >> they'll give you a degree... >> it's a very profitable business. >> ...find you a loan... >> they're doing it at the expense of the federal taxpayer. >> ...but will they give you an education? >> they're there to make money. they're there for profit. >> martin smith investigates. >> do you have the credibility to be determining the future of colleges around the country? >> no, but i'm doing it. >> "college, inc." watch frontline. >> and now, exclusively on-line. in the days af

host: tie that into afghanistan. how are these militias relating to our question this morning about afghanistan? caller: it is the same thing here in michigan as in afghanistan. these people are dangerous. we have people in our own country walking into churches and murdering people or spitting on people on the white house steps. people putting our elected officials in their gunsights. host: let us hear from marathon, florida. caller: i have a question. is this gentleman is credible, what makes incredible? president obama speaks of many things and why things are credible. i would like to know, if he is critical, -- credible, and 1 cents. i did not see him as a credible partner at all. i do not think he is a true person are good for his word. host: what is the most distinctive thing about him not being a credible partner. what does he have to get right for him to be credible partner? caller: i think he has to stay on target. many people don't. he have to stop -- has to stay on target. what is his purpose? i would like

in afghanistan is to keep us safe. it is because we believe that, if you allow it to be a haven for extremism and terrorism, there will be more terrorist attacks here in britain. if it were to happen again, we should. the problem is that we have done it in a manner that i don't think we pursue the right strategy. not given the right equipment to our troops. we have not had the right information on the ground in afghanistan. we have not work with other countries in the region to do so. he put soldiers into harm's way, you do the job properly or you don't do it at all. if we ever make that decision again, let's make sure that we have the right equipment, the right strategy, so they can come back having done the right job that we have asked to do and hold their heads high the they have done it best. >> we are having to take action with multilateral partners to deal with these problems. why are we in afghanistan and why we have to be vigilant all the time? there's a chain of terror that links these groups in different part

they can see the real afghanistan. if you sit down at the chamber of commerce, there will be complaining about dumping of products. all you hear is security and how many people are killed. the objective is to broaden the spectrum and for people to be able to see the rule afghanistan that is out there. it will need some time. it'll take some changes on the procedures to allow americans to have more exposure to the afghan society. >> thank you. yes, sir? >> in your wonderful speech, you mentioned that the goal of afghanistan is building democracy and civil society. if you read articles in newspapers and analysis from the united states and other countries, they expressed some doubt about these goals being achievable. what do you think about this? how realistic is it to build this kind of complicated democratic society? >> thank you. very good question. i do not expect the international community to come to afghanistan to build democracy in afghanistan. that is the part of the mission. the mission is to defeat terror and t

more helicopters, more helicopter hours in afghanistan, in afghanistan now. >> has my right honorable friend had a chance to read in yesterday's financial times most of which speaking for the change of government britain will find itself dangerously isolated in europe? [laughter] >> does he agree, does you further agree that we must work with chancellor and other leaders and not get into bed and breakfast with extremist politicians, the holocaust, that are not acceptable in our democracy? >> mr. speaker, if the conservative party had really changed the would've changed its position on euro. but it's the same old conservative party moving further and further to the extreme of europe. can't form an alliance with chancellor merkel or with president sarkozy or with the right democrat parties in your. so they have to go into alliance with the most extreme comments of europe, and alleged thing they did was vote against the transfer of information to do with the problem of tax havens, exactly the sort of policy lord ashcroft would want him to support. >> what did the chancellor mean when he

we met with a number of folks in the leadership in afghanistan on the afghanistan side. president karzai among others to the ed ministers within the cabinet and other folks that were part of the parliament when for the folks in the media and we met with a lot of the troops who ran the southern part of afghanistan for the better part of one day and a lot of trips included our states and had the opportunity to see among other things to see actually remember the film sleeping with the enemy we had the opportunity to see u.s. troops sweeping the same compound with afghan national army troops with our allied troops, with afghan national police and we have done is we don't have the arresters out by themselves in a compound somewhere. they are integrated and we meet with the afghan national army and sometimes police we eat with them, then the same areas, train with them, they sometimes need operations and sometimes we do. it's very much an integrated world. the idea is to put our people from our folks not often in a compound some place but to put them and literally among the pe

abdul is the cai program directer in afghanistan. >> many of these places are very remote area of afghanistan where you actually have to convince people who are still taliban influenced. >> yes. >> to open your schools. >> yes. >> greg mortensen sees schools, specifically those for girls as the most effective way to combat extremism in muslim society. before joining the jihad, most young men seek permission from their mothers before they can go off and have an attack. and mortensen finds if the mothers are educated they won't give that blessing to the young men. back to you, kimberly. >> thanks, craig and geraldo. the southern republican leadership conference just ended and the results from the straw poll could be a litmus test for the presidential nomination. mitt romney edged congressman ron paul in the poll, winning by a single vote. sarah palin finished third in a statistical tie with newt gingrich and our own mike huckabee took fifth. he should have been first. i want a recap. is this a real indication of 2012, the gop race? >> if it is, then ron paul is a serious contender for the 2012

this is afghanistan. a country wrecked by 25 years of war, with one of the lowest levels of income and literacy in the world. what it needs right now is government. good government f we're lucky. democratic government ideally, but first government. in an ideal world we might be able to have it all. in the one we have, it's a choice between karzai and something that could be a lot worse. any way that is my view. you will hear a very important voice express the opposite view now. peter galbraith, one of america's most distinguished diplomats over the years has decided that working with karzai is impossible, and draws some very striking conclusions on america's mission in afghanistan, and on karzai himself. >> one of the explanation, based on what sources inside the palace have said, is that he is -- that he may be using drugs. this behavior is very strange. >> what you have heard within the palace does it speak of particular drugs? >> well, hashish use and marijuana is common in afghanistan. >> after that t

but afghanistan is a country built on consensus. they have lawyers and sit in a circle and they all figure out what it is they are going to do and then they try to do it and often it changes and people don't do what they said they were going to do but it is a country of consensus making and afghanistan likes a winner, too. going back to the question about the taliban. typically, in that society you are going with the winners of what is going on right now is the counter insurgency deployment etc is that karzai and the afghans have to seem like more of the winner then that taliban had been believe it or not in operating the government and that is one of the things we asked about wife of 30,000 troops. that's fine to create from the top down police force or which can provide security but then from the grassroots bottom-up then work of this person by person tried by tried. as a case in point detroit said they were so disgusted with the talent and a couple of weeks ago they were going to fight them no matter what and if the u.s. wanted t

speaker, we have increased the number of helicopters in afghanistan. we have a increased the flying in size by more than 100%. i think you should recognize that it thinks have been adapted in afghanistan. you should also recognize that other things were also adapted to be in afghanistan. you should recognize that we have helicopters in afghanistan that are working and that we are part of an international operation in afghanistan where we share equipment with our coalition partners. i have to say to you, the amount of money spent in afghanistan now is $5 billion lbs. per year. -- ises pound sign 5 billion per year -- is 5 billion pounds per year. >> mr. david cameron. >> why should anyone believe the prime minister when he was the first in history to go in front of a public inquiry and not give accurate information? >> let me offer another decision for which this prime minister ought to be accountable. he has a rather pension funds of $100 billion. his own welfare minister said, "when labor u.k. -- when labour came into power, and we had plenty of funds

they don't want a foundation for afghanistan that has an exit strategy. and that, first says we're leaving and then says what we're going to do before then. they want a foundation for afghanistan that will be supported worldwide that's going to be there ten years from now and a hundred years from now. and i for one join all of you in wishing this entire enterprise enormous success. >> thank you very much. let me make one quick final remark. i apologize for the time. i really should mention the tremendous respect for the work that general fields and others are doing in afghanistan. they're listening to the afghans. we have issues. we have to work together. that's a good example of the excellent work. very quickly on the issue of korea. there's a book that no one reads any more and i've been giving it to my friends. it's called state building in korea. the approach that leads exactly to if foundation here is that the way you did it in the korean country to iraq and afghanistan, the united states spends a lot of money on building the leadership first. in kor

they can see the real afghanistan. if you sit down at the chamber of commerce, there will be complaining about dumping of products. all you hear is security and how many people are killed. the objective is to broaden the spectrum and for people to be able to see the rule afghanistan that is out there. it will need some time. it'll take some changes on the procedures to allow americans to have more exposure to the afghan society. >> thank you. yes, sir? >> in your wonderful speech, you mentioned that the goal of afghanistan is building democracy and civil society. if you read articles in newspapers and analysis from the united states and other countries, they expressed some doubt about these goals being achievable. what do you think about this? how realistic is it to build this kind of complicated democratic society? >> thank you. very good question. i do not expect the international community to come to afghanistan to build democracy in afghanistan. that is the part of the mission. the mission is to defeat terror and t

real success in afghanistan and in pakistan? >> well, i would be careful about describing, quote, real success in afghanistan. i think what we have done -- we have worked real hard over the course of the last year to get the inputs right to put in place the components for a comprehensive civil military counter insurgency campaign plan, the right organizations and structures that are necessary for that, the right leaders in charge of them, i mentioned demastura, on the u.n. side and an e.u. rep, in addition to general mcchrystal and the other s, to get the concept it ises right and to get the resources in place to carry out the concept under the leaders and the organizations and the resources are still flowing. we're over half of the 30,000 additional forces that president obama ordered as part of the policy announced at west point in early december. we're over 15,000 of those 30,000 but still, that's going to -- and they'll be in place by august, so we have a few more months to go with that. in the meantime, already, tho

so don't leave afghanistan. leave behind unless it ambitions for afghanistan. we can hire military down there when we are facing a global enemy. madame? we will get to everybody. >> was related to what you are saying, what's your position on pakistan? >> i will repeat at. >> your position on pakistan and emphasizing getting into pakistan, fighting the taliban. do you think there's any validity to that, any hope, that something can be accomplished? that's number one. and number one passion number two. >> number one is complex enough. first of all, i am not a dixie chicks, and although i very strong feelings about the present, i will not trash an american president. so i just not going to talk about obama. pakistan, she asked about pakistan. pakistan, is using -- losing proposition. it is an artificial country. it doesn't make sense. a champion great enemy of muslims and insisted on having a muslim state because india was been much and you. think how much powerful muslim boys would be if it state. pakistan, its own rationale for being a state is that they are all

and nato commander in afghanistan. and mcchrystal himself comes out of the special operations community. that's his entire background is in special operations. and you might wonder whether or not that gives him a better understanding of special operations to enable him to use that capability more precisely. or, you might wonder if it makes him too sympathetic to special operations. they're his guys, so give them a break. >> moyers: general mcchrystal himself has said that we've shot-- and this is his words, not mine-- an amazing number of people over there who did not seem to be a threat to his troops. >> i think that is... that's clearly the case. when mcchrystal was put in command last year, and devised his counterinsurgency strategy, the essential core principle of that strategy is that we will protect the population. we will protect the people. and the contradiction is that ever since president obama gave mcchrystal the go-ahead to implement that strategy, we have nonetheless continued to have this series of incide

he is the leader of afghanistan. we're also working with leaders at the regional and local level to make sure that they can deliver on what the people expect of their government. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> the british prime minister called a general election for may the sixth. pollsters and political strategists are trying to identify the group of people who could decide the outcome of what is expected to be a close race. they have had soccer moms in the u.s.. many think that the key will be motorway man. he depends on his car, cares about his positions, and lives in new housing. our reporter took up residence in a station in search of motorway man. >> this is a key battleground i election.l xxthe service stations or the people who use them could help decide the outcome. when we heard that, we knew we would have to use the latest in geographical measures to find our service station. when the editor told me i would be spending the election campaigning motorway services, i could not get out of the doo

so to leave afghanistan. leave behind unrelated ambitions for afghanistan. we can't tie our military down to one where facing a global enemy. madame. >> one with a two which were just saying. what your position on pakistan, and your position on pakistan and the president of course but emphasizing getting into pakistan, fighting taliban to pakistan do you think there's any validity to that, any hope that something can be accomplished? that's number one, never to speak number one is complex enough. first of all, i'm not the dixie chicks, and although either something about president obama you can read in the "new york post" and i will not trash an american president. sun-kissed i going to talk about obama, but you read the post. pakistan, she asked about pakistan. pakistanis are great comments. pakistan's a losing proposition that it's an artificial country. doesn't make sense. and doesn't work because the champion and great enemy of muslims insisted on having a muslim state because majority hindu. think of how much more powerful the muslim voice would be. pak

it was in southern afghanistan. a member of the taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around for a few days in the desert, lost, out of food, no water. he looked on the horizon and saw what looked like a shack. he walked towards that shaq. as he got to it, it turned out it was a little store owned by a jewish merchant. the taliban warrior with up to him and said, "i need water. give me some water." the merchant said, "i am sorry. i do not have any water. but we have a nice sale of ties today." the taliban erupted into a stream of language that i cannot repeat about israel, about jewish people, about the man himself, about his family. "why are you trying to sell me ties? people do not get it." he waited until this man was through with his diatribe and said, "i am sorry i do not have water for you. i forgive you for all of the insults you have levied against me, my family, and my country. but i will help you. if you go over that hill and walked 2 miles, there is a restaurant there. the heavy water

in the war in afghanistan, i never said we won the war. we just devised a policy that hopefully will help us win that. in terms of financial cost, all of those monies come out of the out of the department of defense department of defense budget. so there's not a senior leader who is not dealing with financial cost. when we go to war, and we are formulating a strategy to go to war, somebody's asking us as a charset, rightly so, we don't take the place. and we don't choose the objective. but someone tells us to execute, we put before our leaders what does that mean to us to execute that policy that teaches formulated? what is the size of that operation? our best judgment in terms of what the duration of that operation will be, and what the cost of that operation will be. and we also try to make some attempts something were all close to, and what is the risk to the human lives that we are came into that operation? so absolutely, yes. that is put in front of leaders in some level of detail in terms of what that is. in terms of presenting diffe

more helicopters, more helicopter hours in afghanistan, in afghanistan now. >> has my right honorable friend had a chance to read in yesterday's financial times most of which speaking for the change of government britain will find itself dangerously isolated in europe? [laughter] >> does he agree, does you further agree that we must work with chancellor and other leaders and not get into bed and breakfast with extremist politicians, the holocaust, that are not acceptable in our democracy? >> mr. speaker, if the conservative party had really changed the would've changed its position on euro. but it's the same old conservative party moving further and further to the extreme of europe. can't form an alliance with chancellor merkel or with president sarkozy or with the right democrat parties in your. so they have to go into alliance with the most extreme comments of europe, and alleged thing they did was vote against the transfer of information to do with the problem of tax havens, exactly the sort of policy lord ashcroft would want him to support. >> what did the chancellor mean when he

i approached afghanistan for the very grass roots perspective. i come from a social work background. i talked to people and the street. i talk to these boys. i tried to talk to mainstream afghans and get a sense from them how they feel what is happening to the country no matter what politicians or whomever may be saying. >> what does perot do do in hisy life when you are not there? >> he is working for bangladesh ngo aid organization. he is very satisfied. that is great. we stay in touch. >> so he has seen e-mail connec? does he have his own computer? >> usually goes to an internet cafe. >> where does he live? >> south kaul in a large house with his family, his wife, and three children. >> a large house. is he a wealthy man? >> i would not say he is a wealthy man. because the whole family lives in the house they all chipped in to support the house. the income there is radically different from ours. his father earns $200 a month and feels that is a good salary. obviously their cost of living is different from ours. i'm not saying they're having an

lieutenant-general william webster discusses development in afghanistan following president obama as a visit last weekend as well as plans for reduced u.s. presence in iraq. this is about half an hour. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and think you for joining us on good friday. general webster this is bryan of the pentagon. i take that you can hear us okay. >> i can hear you very good, thanks, bryan. >> thanks very much for joining this evening. this is lieutenant general william webster the commander of the army in kuwait. the firm has more than 50,000 military and civilians operating in 13 countries. general webster's area of responsibility is an area of more than 4.5 million square miles, or about 1.5 times the size of the continent of the divided states, so a big job. he took command in may of last year and right now is sustaining the two current combat operations supporting both the responsible drawdown in iraq as well as the buildup in afghanistan and the army. so general webster, think you for taking the time and i understand you are going to give a bit of an over

so i hope our efforts in afghanistan are fully successful in afghanistan becomes a fully integrated democratic member of the united nations and every afghan is going to university. great, hope it happens. i don't think it's going to. so i resent the idea that were time to do something the local people don't want that the great expanse of one treasure and speaking for the u.s., we have all into this pattern for the cold war when siu supported dictators, the tory figures because it was lost. the cold war is over. doughnuts do it anymore. but we still can't stop. in the pattern is the same. we lie to ourselves. in vietnam and later under what cheer, but keeping ourselves that these guys are cherished other people and just a little more time and the local militaries are going to come along. but we've been in afghanistan almost a decade and we can't get afghans to fight what we want them to fight for. does not tell us something? at what point did the afghan step up? iraq was different. i was for iraq. not because of weapons of mass destruction, because the middle east is so broke and we have to do

we see this in afghanistan. we added to file with their concerns that the people -- we identify with the concerns about their future. this is a matter for peaceful dialogue. >> he says that there is going to be one ambassador meeting tomorrow. the chinese will be attending. . . to support the goals that he's laid out from his inaugural speech today. we are working with the government, generating economic growth, delivering effective governance for the afghan people. to the extent that we have differences with president karzai, we will work through that constructively and in the spirit of long-term partnership reestablished. >> what about whether or not to cancel the may visit? >> the visit is still on. there's been no change. >> on television one of his people made accusations. is there any reason to believe that president karzai is hiding out in the basement doing something terrible? [laughter] >> he is the president of afghanistan. he has been significantly engage with us on a regular basis. the secretary spok

in iraq and afghanistan first. we have been concerned about it ever since the first trip i took one year ago. what is going to happen in northern iraq? it is clear that the only thing that the sunni and shia agree on is that they do not like the kurds, and how that will work out. we went up to kirkuk, and things are on a hair trigger. the iraqi troops, they just got a new general. when you went away for the briefing, you had the idea that within three or four months, people were going to be shooting. the quality of our military is incredible, and an example is general odierno, who is absolutely incredible. when he did, he went up there, and as you know, there is a piece of land that is under dispute. it is where the kurds were pushed out, and they think they should be able to come back. there also has to be about one- third of the oil that is under this particular piece of land, so it is serious. things started breaking up, and what general odierno did was, he said, "ok, from now on," and i think there are over 20

afghanistan is in a lot of trouble that way. but we have to keep pakistan stable because of a lot of issues, one, of course, is the atomic bombs and they are friends of ours and we depend on them for a lot of help. we needed them a lot getting in and out of iraq. but stability is the key issue for pakistan. less so, it as more mature government than in afghanistan but the afghan and pakistan stability of their governments a huge issue for us. >> they can be codependent with one another. >> yes. >> and what about briefly your thoughts on iran? >> iran has to be dealt with directly economically, socially, militarily is a bridge too far. we already have two wars going on. >> you're right. we can't overextend ourselves. when we return, take a look at this -- >> coming up,. >> basically it would be deep. it would go straight down and for someone to find something down that it would be literally impossible. >> breaking news in the case of the missing utah mom. could her husband's conscience lead to a confession and her >>> we are cont

get out of afghanistan politically? >> you could make the argument that he could have gotten out of it. i don't think there is a political plus or minus in afghanistan, it is a net neutral thing. with republicans, you know, they are saying, yeah, we should be there, but it's not going to be a debate issue. chris: i think everybody knows that somewhere down the line, we are going to be out of gas. >> it was a bottled move by the president and he has captured the national security. get off the dependence of foreign oil. the president is announcing these new standards. our cars have to be more efficient, 35 miles to the gallon. all part of that by the president. chris: david? >> the president is trying to have it both ways, drill in some areas, butn some other areas, beautiful cape cod, the pacific coast, we aren't going to drill there. some areas of alaska, but not others. he does have a way of straddling these issues. and i think looking at his performance over the last year, it is not effective. it leaves both sides unh

also the question, forget the economy, about the government of afghanistan. we've got, what, close to 100,000 troops there. do we have a partner on the ground in afghanistan that can provide a stable government and protect the people who come over to our side? you know, this interesting -- it's interesting this comment where he's saying we're grateful. that came two days after he blamed all the fraud in the last presidential election on the u.n. and other countries, as if it wasn't what he and his allies were doing in afghanistan. you talked about the best part of the president's week and worst part. up to the statement, the worst parts was the back breaking trip to and from afghanistan to be followed by hamid karzai saying all that stuff i said to the president is bologna and we're not going to clean up our act. he seems to have gotten a walk to the woodshed and told, listen, we have an all of lot invested in afghanistan, we need you towing our line. whether he does, we'll see. >> shepard: the most important thing coming up is hoops tomorrow. >> i have west

i just came back from afghanistan, about five days ago. we just exchanged views with regard to what the situation was in afghanistan. my discussions with afghan officials, including president karzai. we had a good chat. host: democratic caller, new york, new york. caller: hello, everybody agreed hello, mr. ambassador. guest: hello. caller: i have been listening to you for about half the time you have been on people want a greater sense of security -- it struck me when you talk about people wanting a greater sense of security. how do you have greater sense of security if you do not know what will get you killed? you literally do not know if you'll get killed for wearing the wrong clothes, flying a kite in the ave. you just don't know. but you have is a sense of insecurity. guest: right. caller: it struck me also that this goes back to the times that people like stalin and mao zedong. you still have that frame of mind that they are going to give us security and they promised us security and they don't do it. they don't get it. they give what

>> i hadn't even know where afghanistan was and began a review about it. it took me across the globe outside of my 9-5 existence to see of culture radically different from my own and a country that experienced 30 years of warfare had just been devastated, the kind of devastation i had only seen in photographs of world war ii with pictures of europe after the allies -- >> did you embed? >> i did in 2003 with the 82 airborne. >> this was right after 9/11. where were you and what did you cover? >> i arrive toward the end of november 2001 and i connected with a gentleman whose name was muhammed and he would always correct me because he felt the wasn't pronouncing it correctly so i started calling him borrow. , was interviewing his uncle which was trying to clear afghanistan of all the mines from previous wars and i mentioned to him that i was looking for a translator. this is my second day and i was on my own. i had to fend for myself and he told me that his nephew could speak english and that is how it started. he was a little reluctant and suspicious of me a

staffers could organize a fraud in afghanistan at all. much less one that involved a million, maybe a million and a half phony ballots. but he also made a really striking admission here. he admitted that there was widespread fraud. and in effect he admitted that he hadn't won the election. that it was only the fraud committed by foreigners according to him that got him the necessary million and a half votes that he needed to win. i think there's a larger issue in this outburst which is so bizarre. it really has to raise questions about mr. karzai's connection to reality. he seems to be in a corner. he's lashing out. and it's obvious that he's not the kind of credible partner that the united states and its allies need to have success in afghanistan. that really is what this incident similar bombizes. >> peter galbraith talking to us earlier. >> the russian president dmitry medvedev has called for tougher action against terrorism in the north caucasus. he made an unannounced visit to the region a day after suicide bombings killed 12 people