Showing posts with label Afghanistan war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan war. Show all posts

Monday, April 19, 2021

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 4/16/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on police shootings, the U.S. withdrawal from AfghanistanPBS NewsHour 4/16/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including police shootings of people of color, and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you.  Very good to see you on this Friday night.

But I want to start out with something that has been less than uplifting this week.  And that is more gun violence, in particular, two more police shootings of young Black men, different circumstances, one in Minneapolis, just 10 miles from the man who is accused of murdering George Floyd is on trial, the other one in Chicago.

Jonathan, my question is, we keep seeing this happen.  What do we make of it?  And is it something that is going to require a change in law?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  It's going to require a change in a lot of things, Judy.  It's going to require a change in law, certainly, but a change in attitudes among the American people as a whole and among police.

You know, when I leave my home, when I leave my apartment, I know that, when I am no longer at home, I'm viewed with some level of suspicion, even as a threat, simply because I'm Black, and certainly because I'm a Black male.  And that is something that I have to deal with.

And I have said often and I will keep saying it, there's no such thing as a routine traffic stop when you're African American, and particularly when you're an African American man.

And I think attitudes need to change, particularly among police, because, more often than not, we are viewed as threats.  We saw that in the video of Army Lieutenant Nazario in Virginia that happened in December, but came to light last week.  We saw that in the video of the initial encounter with George Floyd.

When they tapped on the window of George Floyd's SUV with a flashlight, he turns around, and what does he see?  A gun in his face.

With Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, the police officer said "I will Tase you,"  "Taser, Taser, Taser."

Instead, she had a gun in her hand and shot him.

Now, as you said, Judy, these are all different circumstances, but the overall mood is the same.  Black people feel under threat.  They feel under siege.  And until the rest of America changes its attitude, and until law enforcement somehow changes the way it views the people they are sworn to serve and protect, nothing is going to change.

Judy Woodruff:  David, why does this keep happening?  And what do you think about what needs to change?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, the first thing that needs to change is, we do need to accept that there is racial bias in policing.

There are still too many people, and especially too many people in the police force, who think it's — that it's not there.  But it's not only Jonathan's experience and almost every experience of every African American person I know.  There's just dozens of studies that show, in traffic stops, car searches, drug arrests, there's just vast disparate policing that still goes on.  And that's just about attitude.

The good news is, if you do take some reforms, you can make some progress.  There's been a sharp drop in the number of shootings of unarmed people.  Armed people, it's still pretty stable, but unarmed people, we have made some progress.  So, there are things that can be done.

And those are things like removing choke holds.  Those are things like — a little idea that I kind of like is, you have to have written permission to search a car, these things called pretextual stops, where they stop a car on the pretext of one thing, when they're really looking for something else.

Data is very poorly collected.  So, which parts of which police forces are having the most disparate arrests or the most desperate searches?  That data is not collected.  There are these things called police officers bill of rights which are in a lot of state legislatures that police unions have instituted that create all these artificial barriers to investigating an incident, that a cop has to be punished within 30 or 100 days, and if it's too late, then he's off.

And so there are lots of little things that can be done to hopefully reduce these kinds of tragedies.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Jonathan, are these the kinds of things that you think can make a difference?  Should we — what can we be trying that hasn't been tried before now?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, actually, all of those things that David just mentioned are pieces of what is known as the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

And I think that if that does become law, that it will start to put us on a road of ameliorating this very severe problem.  But, also, it's a problem that is not just now, part of contemporary America.

Generations of African Americans have been talking about this and complaining about this.  And the one thing that is different is that a lot of this has been caught on video.  And so, if you do have things like ending racial profiling, collecting data, ending qualified immunity, which makes it possible for people to hold police officers and police departments accountable when they get it wrong, those are all things that will improve policing — excuse me — but will also improve the relationship between communities and police.

Because anyone who thinks that African Americans don't want protection from crime and don't want police to actually be there to serve and protect, they are suffering under a very wrong notion.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, I should say, I misspoke.  I said the shooting of two young Black men.  One was a young Black man.  The other was a young — a teenager, Latino, who was 13 years old.

But, David, do you think these measures can make a difference?

David Brooks:  Yes, I think they have.  I think our policing has improved from where it was.

I was briefly a police reporter on the South and West Side of Chicago.  And there was an atmosphere then — maybe there still is, but I think it's probably less — of:  It's us vs. the world, that we cops are the good guys and the world is an awful place.

And so there was almost a military attitude.  And that military culture is something experts talk about in the training of policing.  And that's just not the right attitude.  And the hard part about this is, there are like, I think, 18,000 police forces in this country.  It's hyperlocal.  A lot of them are under-resourced.  A lot have their own cultures.

But changing that culture, so that people are out in the neighborhood, I think, has helped.  And getting diverse work forces has helped a bit.  So, I'm — this has been awful to watch these things, but it's not like it's something we haven't made some progress toward.

Judy Woodruff:  Something else I want to ask both of you about, the decision by President Biden, Jonathan, to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by September 11.  It will have been 20 years since the United States was attacked, of course, by al-Qaida.

The President's argument is that this was never meant to be a war that lasted this long, in his words, a multigenerational war.  And he also made the argument we don't need — the threat has metastasized around the world, and we can't fight it any longer with boots on the ground in one country.

What do you make of his argument and of the decision?

Jonathan Capehart:  I — excuse me — I think his argument is one that we should we should take seriously and one that we need to deal with.

Yes, the threat has metastasized around the world.  And it isn't just coming out of Afghanistan.  And it does make sense to remove our troops and have them nimble enough to respond to those.

And let's keep in mind, when there are 10,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 2,500 of them are U.S. troops.  So, we're not talking about the 100,000 troops on the ground as we had in 2011.  So, this is an easier lift.

But the other thing to keep in mind is the number of people who have cycled through there.  I have some stats here, 30,000 — 2,300 dead, 20,000 wounded; 30,000 U.S. service members have been deployed to Afghanistan at least five times.

And we're talking about not a broadly shared sacrifice.  We're talking about a narrowly shared sacrifice, and not even shared at all, when you have 1 percent of the American population serving in the military.

So this was not an easy decision, I would think, for the President, but the fact that he made it and said — and set a deadline, which is very controversial, but he wants the United States out.  And I give him credit for making a very tough decision.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, what's your thinking on this?

David Brooks:  Yes, I disagree.  I think it's a grave mistake.

I think every expert that I read, or at least most of them, seem to believe that the Taliban will take over Afghanistan, will take over Kabul and the major cities.  And that's not going to be good for girls who want to go to school.  That's not good for people who want to enjoy a life of freedom.

That's a return to something pretty ugly.  We have only 2,500 there, but they're protecting the 10,000 — the other NATO troops, who are doing most of the training.  Our men and women in uniform are not on front-line combat, by and large, anymore.

And so it's not as onerous a lift as it was before.  And to preserve a somewhat free society, I think, is the right thing to do.  If the U.S. pulls out all, the other NATO forces are expected to pull out, and then we will be back.

And I understand the impatience.  It's been 20 years, but we have been in North Korea a long — or in South Korea a long time.  We have been in Europe a long time.  I think these things can sometimes serve a use.  And I say that while saluting the sacrifice of the people go over there.

Judy Woodruff:  Just briefly, Jonathan, what's — what do you say to this argument it's leaving a lot of people in the lurch in Afghanistan?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, no, I understand that argument.  And David makes a — makes a very good point that we — Afghan women and girls probably face danger.  Afghanistan could collapse, but could and might, not assured.

And so, like I said, this was not an easy decision.  In some ways, it's a gamble.  But I think it's one that the President felt he had to make.

Judy Woodruff:  David?

David Brooks:  Yes, listen, we're not going to be the world's policemen anymore.  We're not going to be the kind of superpower we were in the aftermath of World War II.

But we still are the biggest power in the world.  And I think with that comes opportunities to try to preserve civilization when you can.  And that doesn't mean going to war.  That doesn't mean putting our men and women in combat, but guarding people who are training the Afghan soldiers to go into combat, that seems to me a right balance to strike.

Judy Woodruff:  Sobering stuff at the end of this week.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

David Brooks:  Thank you, Judy.



Monday, March 22, 2021

AFGHANISTAN - America’s Longest War Wages On

"As America’s longest war wages on, is there hope for peace?PBS NewsHour 3/18/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Today in Moscow, the U.S. and half a dozen other countries are holding a summit on the best way to end the war in Afghanistan, launched by the U.S. nearly 20 years ago.  President Joe Biden recently said it would be "tough" to pull American troops out of the nation by May as planned by the Trump administration.  How does that affect the prospects of peace in the country?  Nick Schifrin explores.



Monday, December 16, 2019

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/13/2019

"Shields and Brooks on articles of impeachment, FBI’s Russia mistakes" PBS NewsHour 12/13/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the House Judiciary Committee’s passage of articles of impeachment along party lines, Republicans’ defense of President Trump, how impeachment affects Trump politically, what the Horowitz report says about the FBI and a bombshell report on the Afghan war.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as of today, those are the Judiciary Committee-approved charges against President Trump.  Now it is on the full House of Representatives to decide whether or not to impeach him.

To help us analyze this important week, as always, are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So these two articles of impeachment, David, how strong a case have the Democrats made with this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, two things.  One, I think they have made a strong case.

I think there was clearly a campaign to have a quid pro quo with Ukraine, and it's clearly an impeachable offense.

As for the articles of impeachment, I don't like them.  Abuse of power, what is that?  Like, that's not a criminal thing.  Like, it's a vague construct.  And same with obstruction of Congress.  Like, these are both extremely vague constructs.

And I think they lead away from what actually happened, what crime was committed, and what should the punishment be.  And they will lead to a debate over these vague concepts.

The concepts should hug closely to some sort of criminal concept that's in our court system, so we all have a history about it, so we know the structure of it, and these sort of waft away from it.  So, I think they make the case.  I just don't like the way they framed it.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, too vague and not on the point?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  David, too vague?  No, never.

Judy, I think the best case was made by a unique person, in the sense of Zoe Lofgren, who was a staffer for Don Edwards on the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment, was a member at the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment, is now in the House Judiciary Committee.

And she — I thought she drew the distinction quite compellingly.  And that was that Richard Nixon, no comporting with a foreign power, no attempt to bring the foreign influence into our elections, that he had tried to influence the election improperly, and tried to cover it up with the FBI and the CIA, and paid for it.

That Bill Clinton, no foreign influence, no rigging of an election, he had, totally improperly and indefensibly, had sexual relations with a 21-year-old intern and lied about it.

But this was a President [Trump] trying to rig an election coming up in 2020, using a country, an ally under duress, facing an external threat to its survival from Moscow and — from Russia, and in need of our assistance that had already been voted for, and asking for exchange to get that, to meet — or meeting even with the President to validate the new leader of our ally there, that they spy on an upcoming election in the President's principal opponent.

Judy Woodruff:  And you're saying these articles capture that?  Or they…

Mark Shields:  I think they capture — I mean, I think it's pretty — I just think it's quite straightforward and clearly understandable, and clearly understandable to anybody.

And I think, Judy, quite honestly, no Republican I know will be able to explain to his or her grandchildren why he or she voted against this, I mean, that this was defensible, that this was acceptable behavior on the part of a President of the United States.

David Brooks:  I think it will say, oh, I might have voted for censure.  This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

I still think that's their strongest argument, aside from just throwing up smoke.

Judy Woodruff:  But are you saying, David, that there's another — there's a different article that they could have, should have come up?

David Brooks:  Well, I should have gone to law school because I would know.

(LAUGHTER)

I didn't go to law school.  So I don't have the exact phrase.  I just think the phrase abuse of power just doesn't — it just means nothing and everything to me.

Judy Woodruff:  And obstruction of Congress?

David Brooks:  Well, that's a little closer.  But, frankly, so many people have been accused and sometimes removed for office from that, that do we really undo an election over that one?

And I think something serious happened here.  But it was that — what Mark just described.  But, somehow, the way we're about to debate this doesn't seem to get the seriousness of it.

Mark Shields:  Well, just one side has engaged in the debate.  I mean, the Republicans have not.

I mean, there was an acknowledgment on the part of Clinton's defenders that he had done something wrong, even with Nixon, that there had been a break-in.  I mean, the Republicans are just in a state of denial.  They're sailing blithely on the river denial, I mean, that there was nothing, nothing was done.

This is — Mick Mulvaney tells us, wake up and grow up and accept it.

Judy Woodruff:  The Republicans are calling it a sham, a waste of time.

The President himself is doing the same thing.  He's tweeting a lot.  He was out on the campaign trail this week.  He was in Hershey, Pennsylvania, talking about the impeachment process, also singling out the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.

And here's what the President said:

President Donald Trump:  The president of Ukraine repeatedly declared that there was no pressure, but he didn't want to say that.

We said, say it.  Say it, you crooked bastard.  Say it.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

President Donald Trump:  But he doesn't want to say it.  We said, say it.

I'd like to force him to say it.

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  He will walk up to the mic.  "Ladies and gentlemen."

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  The guy total corrupt guy.

Judy Woodruff:  So that plays well with Trump supporters, doesn't it?

David Brooks:  He's a showman.  And that's showbiz.

And I have to say, I had a friend come from — he'd been away in Israel and came back to the United States.  And he came to me, he said, Trump's really funny.

And I don't always see the humor.  But, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, tens of thousand of people saw the humor, and hundreds of thousands of million — hundreds of millions — or tens of millions of people around the country see the humor.

And they just think the guy's funny, and I like that.

Judy Woodruff:  It seems — it's working?  I mean, he's using coarse, tough language.

Mark Shields:  It's not working.  He's running behind Joe Biden and every other leading Democrat.

Judy, just think of politicians, political leaders in your lifetime, whether it's the city — shining city on a hill, or the hope, and that's — or what we can do together, you know, what we owe each other.

This is the antithesis of that.  This is the politics of grievance.  This is not that we are surrounded by those with whom we can work, we can reach across, we can — that my opponent is — my adversary is not mistaken or ill-informed.  My opponent is my enemy and is evil and hates this country and hates you.

And, boy, that didn't echo through Jim Jordan's words.  I mean, Donald Trump has spawned protégées and knockoff versions: They hate us.  They're out to get us.

It really is — it's a terribly bleak and dismal and dark America that this President portrays and those who support him.

David Brooks:  You know, we have all based our careers on the notion that we can have a conversation.

And so I would stand up for those values as much as anybody.  But in a time when people hate the political establishment so much, one of Trump's secrets is to find there has to be a stylistic way of talking that seems different.

And even for those of us on our side have to find the stylistic way of talking that feels authentic to people.  And some of the old communication styles that we used to do or that candidates used to do, I think that just is not resonating with people right now.

And that's been true around the world.  And you can get somebody who's conservative or progressive who doesn't exhaust everybody all the time and who actually talks in a normal tone and actually listens.

Mark Shields:  Yes.  No.

David Brooks:  But, somehow, something has to change.  And that's one of the things we have learned, not only from Trump, but the world politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Some people are pointing to Boris Johnson winning in Britain.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

I guess just — and I agree with David, but just one point, Judy, and that is, at no point is there any celebration of what we have achieved in this country, I mean, the fact that we have cut the poverty rate among people over the age of 65 by two-thirds, that we have removed 85 percent of lead from the air, I mean, all of the things we have done and are doing.

We have got a long way to go.  But we have achieved, and there are good things that America does.

Judy Woodruff:  Two — well, in a completely different direction, two investigations I want to ask you both about.

One, David, is the inspector general at the Department of Justice went back and looked at the origins of the Trump campaign Russia investigation.  Republicans had been saying it would show political bias.  The inspector general said — didn't find political bias, but he did find a lot of mistakes.

What do we take away from this?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, with Fiona Hill and a lot of people who testified, we saw the federal government at its best.  And now we're seeing another side, which is incompetence.

And I take them at their word there was no political bias.  But there was certainly a lot of incompetence, and they were certainly spinning the game.  And the investigation into Carter Page, just for one [actually the only] example, he was meeting with the Russians.  And he was telling the CIA, I just want you to know I'm meeting with them.

And the FBI did not disclose that fact that he told the CIA, which certainly makes it look a lot less suspicious than it otherwise would be.  And, frankly, this vindicates a lot of the — not everything, but a lot of the stuff Devin Nunes was saying, House Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, saying they weren't playing fair.

And so this is a case where I don't like — maybe there wasn't bias, but there was certainly a lot of incompetence and there were certainly people getting over their skis in trying to pursue an investigation, maybe without as much cause as they pretended.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you take away from that.

Mark Shields:  That there wasn't — I agree with David.  There were serious mistakes made.

And I think that FISA process is open, not only to scrutiny, but to severe criticism.  But I — when Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, appointed by President Trump, says investigations were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with the adequate federal predication — predication the recent word that is now in vogue — but he gets lambasted by the President.

It's like everybody got something out of this investigation, except the President, who wanted it to be a coup.  And there was no coup.  That's it.  I mean, I think a lot of people have to answer what they did as far as the visa [FISA?], but there was no coup.

COMMENT:  What David Brooks is failing to realize is that impeachment does NOT have to relate to a crime like in normal courts.  The definition of "High crimes and Misdemeanors" are totally up to the House and can be political.




MISLEADING PUBLIC - Afghanistan War

"Explosive investigative report says U.S. government misled public on war in Afghanistan" PBS NewsHour 12/9/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In a blockbuster story representing the culmination of several years of investigation and pursuit of government documents, The Washington Post reports that U.S. officials have been misleading the American public about the war in Afghanistan for the past 18 years.  John Yang talks to The Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock, lead reporter on the story, about what the classified document trove revealed.




"During Afghan war, lack of U.S. knowledge yielded a flawed strategy" PBS NewsHour 12/10/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For nearly two decades, the United States’ military engagement in Afghanistan has been plagued by strategic missteps, according to The Washington Post's bombshell report.  The investigation examined thousands of pages of previously unpublished notes and interviews from the U.S. government’s Lessons Learned Project analyzing the war.  Nick Schifrin talks to retired Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.



Monday, September 30, 2019

AFGHANISTAN - Without a Path to Peace

"Without a path to peace, Afghan forces constantly fighting to root out Taliban" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In Afghanistan, commando military units are kept busy chasing out the Taliban, then moving on to the next, inevitable advance elsewhere.  But after special forces retake an area, ill-equipped regular forces that replace them struggle to hold on -- the same problem American forces faced there for years.  Can Afghans find any peace?  Special correspondent Jane Ferguson reports.



Monday, March 18, 2019

AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR - Afghanistan After 20yrs

"The brutal push for peace in Afghanistan after almost 20 years of war" PBS NewsHour 3/13/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The highest level of talks yet between the U.S. and the Taliban concluded Tuesday in Qatar.  With videographer Sebastian Rich's exclusive footage of American and Afghan operations in southern Afghanistan; Nick Schifrin reports on how both sides are trying to use battlefield gains to force peacemaking concessions, and gets insight from Nader Nadery a Senior Adviser to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Monday, February 04, 2019

AFGHANISTAN - Taliban Peace Talks

"U.S. and Taliban peace talks make progress toward ending war in Afghanistan" PBS NewsHour 1/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The draft framework of an Afghan peace deal: If the Taliban agree to a cease-fire, working directly with the Afghan government and preventing terror groups from using Afghanistan as a base for planning attacks, U.S. forces will withdraw.  John Yang talks to the International Crisis Group’s Laurel Miller and the Center on International Cooperation’s Barnett Rubin about this "complicated" process.

Monday, December 24, 2018

TRUMP DEFENSE POLICY - James Mattis Resigns in Protest and the Fallout

"Defense Secretary Mattis resigns, citing differences over the role of alliances" PBS NewsHour 12/20/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A day after President Trump announced a surprise decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, Secretary of Defense James Mattis submitted his resignation, which will take effect in February.  The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Gordon joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why the policy differences between the President and Mattis were “too profound” to allow a sustainable working relationship.




"Mattis departure ‘puts our nation at risk,’ Panetta says" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The resignation of U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis is putting our nation at risk, two top former defense and national security leaders say.

To lose Mattis “increases the danger in this country,” not only because the retired four-star general brought valuable experience to the role, but also because of his belief in some long-standing tenets of American foreign policy, said Leon Panetta, who served as secretary of defense and CIA director during the Obama administration.

In his resignation letter, Mattis pointed to the fact that he and President Donald Trump could not agree on several foreign policy and national security issues.

Richard Haass, the director of policy planning at the State Department during the George W. Bush administration, said that is in some ways even more concerning than Mattis’ departure itself because it’s not clear whether the President will take the advice of whoever serves as secretary of defense next.

“Even if someone were to espouse [Mattis’ point of view] … this President simply is not going to listen,” said Haass, now the President of the Council on Foreign Relations.




"Rubio: Trump ‘about to make a major blunder’ on Syria" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) said President Donald Trump “is abandoning that effort [in Syria] before it is completely finished,” and that it is the job of Congress to attempt to convince him otherwise.

“I think he is about to make a major blunder” by pulling out of Syria, Rubio told the PBS NewsHour anchor and Managing Editor Judy Woodruff.

The President’s announcement this week that U.S. troops would be pulling out from Syria, where it has been aiding forces against Islamic State militants, surprised and outraged members of Congress, including some loyal to the President.  Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday offered his resignation in a blistering letter about the importance of America’s global alliances — a decision many believe was motivated by the President’s decision on Syria.

Rubio said that what concerned him the most from Mattis’ abrupt departure was what the Defense Secretary wrote in his letter, which seemed to “confirm our fears” about upcoming decisions facing the Trump administration.

“I’m deeply concerned that we’re about to undertake a series of foreign policy decisions that are going to undermine our security, that are going to undermine our alliances and that are going to embolden our adversaries.”




"Around the world, allies express dismay at Mattis departure" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reverberated around the world Friday.  Although he disagreed with the President repeatedly over major issues, the retired four-star Marine Corps general was widely admired and seen as a stabilizing force within the administration.  John Yang has global reaction to the departure of a military legend described as "a partner for all occasions."

Monday, December 03, 2018

AFGHANISTAN - The Rush For Peace

Why?  Simple, 17+ years of a costly war.  Cost in dollars and lives.

"Despite intensifying violence in Afghanistan, U.S. is ‘in a hurry’ for peace" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Over the past few months, violence has intensified in Afghanistan, but so have efforts to reach a negotiated peace agreement with the Taliban.  Nick Schifrin asks Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, whether he faces an imminent deadline, if the country’s presidential election will be delayed, and how to convince Pakistan to help the push for peace.

Monday, September 17, 2018

AMERICA'S LONGEST WAR - Afghanistan Stalemate?

"17 years on, is Afghanistan making progress toward peace?" PBS NewsHour 9/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For 17 years, the United States and its allies have remained in Afghanistan, fighting alongside Afghan forces, now against a strong Taliban insurgency.  Nick Schifrin looks at the continuing bloodshed, as well as some aspects of progress, then talks with former State Department officials Robin Raphel and Barnett Rubin about the standstill and prospects for peace.

Monday, August 20, 2018

U.S. CONGRESS - Trump, Here's Your Money But......

"Massive defense policy bill takes steps to restrain Trump" PBS NewsHour 8/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Donald Trump signed a sweeping defense authorization bill Monday that offers a statement of policy as well as spending priorities totaling more than $700 billion.  Nick Schifrin joins Amna Nawaz to discuss the scope beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to long-term strategic threats from Russia and China, plus policy on North Korea, civilian deaths in Yemen and soldiers’ pay.




"The Fighters’ help us understand Iraq and Afghanistan wars" PBS NewsHour 8/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  No matter what you may think about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the more than 3 million men and women who have fought are America's sons and daughter, wives and husbands, brothers and sisters.  In “The Fighters: Americans in Combat in Afghanistan and Iraq,” reporter and veteran C.J. Chivers tells their stories with intimacy and empathy.  Chivers joins Nick Schifrin for a conversation.

Monday, March 12, 2018

NEWSHOUR BOOKSHELF - "Directorate S"

"'Directorate S' traces Pakistan's role at the heart of the Afghanistan war" PBS NewsHour 3/8/2018

U.S. longest war.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. has been fighting in Afghanistan for more than 16 years, and mostly against the Taliban, a group that exists in large part due to the intelligence services of Afghan neighbor Pakistan.  Steve Coll's new book "Directorate S" is perhaps the definitive story of the war's aftermath and tense U.S. relations with Pakistan.  Coll joins Nick Schifrin for a conversation.




"The inside story of America's longest war" PBS NewsHour 3/8/2018 (full interview)

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Many books have covered the war in South Asia, but Steve Coll's “Directorate S: The CIA and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001–2016” reveals new information about military mistakes, missed diplomatic opportunities, failed negotiations with the Taliban and Pakistan's support for the Taliban.  Nick Schrifin talks to Steve Coll about his new book.