as a stable one in afghanistan. today if you are in pakistan and a national security adviser or and afghan adviser to president karzai, you are operating under the assumption that the u.s. is leaving. the clock is running out. we have to dispel that notion. >> nato said 2014. from 2010, that looks far off, but all the sudden time tends to creep up. does that not still send that message? we are exiting. >> platts acknowledge there were we were this time last year, we were talking about -- let's acknowledge where we were "the star-ledger" we were talking about 2011. it spurred a movement on the part of the afghan government. i think it was a strategic blunder to put that 2011 marker out there in the december 1 speech. >> do you agree? >> i think it has worked against our interests. >> that is less than a strategic blunder. >> 12 months later, we are talking about 2014. we were able to get nato allies to commit to 2014. the genesis of that 2014 state came from president karzai, from his second inaugural address. one of

-- of afghanistan. that is the case right now, but that will not be the case. we will be focused 80% on security and 20% on a developer. the afghans will want to focus on the opposite way. >> ok, general, summarize the report in two sentences. [laughter] summarize. >> i would say, it is worth reading, so i encourage you to read it. there are a lot of interesting things in there. most importantly, it argues that the u.s., despite the fact we are in an era of different strategic context where deficit and debt will have a tremendous impact on our future role in the world, the u.s. still has a vital interest in the afghan- pakistan border area. to protect those interests, we have to develop a sustainable strategy that allows us to maintain a military presence not only beyond july , 2011. that presence takes a different form than it does today. because unconventional warfare, special operations forces, focusing on attacking and keeping relentless pressure on al qaeda, because that is one of the vital interes

out of the afghanistan itself as a victim of that evil afghanistan as a country with nine hundred sixty thousand drug addicts which is why we say afghanistan as a victim of drugs it's a great evil for our country smugglers make huge profits we can say for certain and prove that international terrorists are active in the part of afghanistan where opium is grown and drugs are manufactured these are the most problematic areas of our country komang province is one of those there is no doubt that afghanistan was responsible for ninety percent of the world's opium production or opium is grown in provinces that like security they are the most troubled provinces there are international terrorist groups there that are very active we have already managed to cleanse twenty provinces of all they are now ruled by law we don't have any problems with those provinces do minister say that the international terrorists mistaken the most benefit from it right that's correct. let us judge fairly afghanistan as a major manufacturer of opium responsible for ninety percent of it on the other hand it's obvious

go back to afghanistan. the key is that has to survive the cyclical nature of the conflict in afghanistan. it's too soon to say if that's successful or unsuccessful. you have to wait until after the summer, after the fighting season. we'll know whether or not we have been successful in the long term in helmand and kandahar. i caution ambassador galbraith about the generalizations about everyone in the afghan government or all afghans being corrupt. that's bigots. >> a rebuttal and then time runs. >> i would love to go back to afghanistan but i can't because hamid karzai said -- issued an order if guy back. why? because he accused me of organizing the fraud that got him re-elected. in april. which shows you a bit how weird he is. and that's our partner. he steals the election and then he blames the u.n. for conducting the fraud. >> he told general petraeus he considers the u.s. and the taliban to be his enemies and given a choice he would side with the taliban. >> the taliban. >> how do we win? >> this is the

much more present in afghanistan and then that is why. impossible task the pakistan army now to fight against the afghan taliban because it's not what they consider their national interest. we are in a situation where particularly we are following different objectives. it's not very clearly said. and actually producing irrationality. one policy for india and one for pakistan. that doesn't make sense. now, what could we say about 2011? first thing is that the timing is going to be the key element, and that would be my last. the timing will be the key element. why? because if the negotiation stops with the taliban, the pakistani military. it won't be before the next u.s. president. so, the window of opportunity is basically an late spring and summer. october in the united states. so who will take this sort of risk. if nothing happens next spring is going to be after 2012. two possibilities. so able to adopt new policy. if it's a new president he will take some time. that is why, actually, what we are seeing in afghanistan, the whole thing i

institute of peace discusses president obama's trip to afghanistan. then later, dave leventhal has details about the publicly disclosed personal finances, assets and investments of

model afghanistan's g.d.p. is about fourteen billion we spend one hundred billion my goodness those just do that money to every afghan and let them lead their lives no there has to be an in that is and there has to be i agree with the leadership with the model and the role we have deployed in the world but it has to be a row of basically noninterference in the affairs of others and if we do interfere as it were but it needs to be with smart power it needs to be with economic power with diplomatic power with political power it needs to be a concerted campaign to make the american example not one of bombs bullets and bayonets but one of genuine freedom and democracy by our example our example now do you think also since. the military industrial complex is so large since it's become natural for us to fight things like you said of bombs bullets and bayonets that that somehow reflects on why there seems to be such a drastic change in attitudes right now in the country why we see islamophobia how we see a cab in new

presence in afghanistan. two air bases that would be beneficial to the afghan security forces, only if the afghans want it as a way to make sure this country never goes back into the hands of the taliban. that would be a good way to end the afghan conflict. >> you know, senator, i hear what you're saying and i'm actually startled by it. my recollection is this war was al qaeda and terrorism, not about nation building in afghanistan. you're now suggesting a permanent imperpetuity presence in afghanistan, the most corrupt country, a president who takes bags of cash from iran. what are we doing? al qaeda is in pakistan, somalia, yemen. why are we going to be sending american troops to die, to prop up a corrupt karzai who's been antithetical to what we believe in? >> well, my belief is that we're in afghanistan to protect national security interests of this nation. if you replace karzai, who do you replace him with? the people to replace him would be the taliban and the taliban would open up afghanistan once agai

in afghanistan our surge is not simply military. we have expanded our presence from 320 civilians less than two years ago to 1,100 today. accomplishing our mission requires close cooperation between our civilians, our troops and our international and afghan partners. we have worked together to arrest the momentum of the taliban. civilians have been particularly instrumental in the progress we have seen in helmand and kandahar, and they will be critical in helping us consolidate the gains we have made in the last year, as we move toward a transition to afghan responsibility. our strategy also recognizes that rebuilding afghanistan is a global commit xhnt. the coalition continues to grow. today it stance at 49 countries. nato and our partners, including the many oic, the organization of islamic countries, that have recently joined the international contact group know that helping the afghan people and standing up against violent extremism is essential for the region and the world. this alirnment of our international effort was on full

in some ways afghanistan. the bloodshed in afghanistan in the 90s after the soviets pulled out, the chaos in that country in the 1990s, even rights figures, something like 400,000 civilians were killed. this society imploded. that era ended when the u.s. went in in 2001 followed by nato. in the decades since nato has been there the u.s. has been afghanistan the highest estimates of civilian casualties are 30,000. then you find yourself sort of arguing with violence to prevent violence. in the world that does happen. on an intuitive level that doesn't feel good to talk that way. that is my job as a reporter. the politics, morality of all this got really complicated when instead of reporting on african civil war like sierra leone which was stopped instantly by the british paratroopers, stopped and that civil war, but now we are talking american soldiers who are in the country for a decade and i could not reconcile all those different questions and issues in my mind so what i decided to do was simply write about

back in afghanistan. basically they were very autonomous from pakistan and they did plenty of things that were absolutely against pakistani interests. so, it is very possible to find a deal with the border in the idea with neutrality in afghanistan. so because the taliban are part of a government they will obey pakistan i think is --. >> president obama is running out of time because next july 2011 he has to reassess its strategy. there are reports although denied, that there are plans for usaid to go into pakistan and do some operations against the afghan taliban. if america does that order of the dangers and benefits of that? >> first of all, the pakistani army is not fighting the --. the haqqani network are operating, i agree with that but the taliban as a separate entity and i think you will want him to explain that. the second part of your question is definitely a disaster. if there are boots on the ground from the united states inside pakistan, i don't think any pakistan government or anybody in the

in the war in afghanistan maybe many people feel they didn't want to be led into that war you know cameron has launched an inquiry today that looks at how you know british security intelligence officials might have been you know might have colluded with other intelligence officials into the torture of terrorist suspects british terror suspects you know you know britain went into afghanistan and when the soldiers went in they were plagued by a lack of equipment i mean what i'm saying is that since two thousand and one in the british public's mind that did the war if it has been hampered by in all sorts of ways and i think that at this time of financial insecurity in the u.k. it feels like many people don't want to be in this war and you know whatever whatever the politicians are saying i think that does seem to be deafening a british retreat from afghanistan are ten months all the time we have it thank you so much for being here definitely was a pleasure restrepo as the new documentary and we all can't wait to see still to come on the best of the a lot of show from two thousand and ten more

we are talking about afghanistan. the president was in afghanistan yesterday. "a surprise visit" and we are talking about the taliban and the president addressing that. here is an excerpt of his speech. >> in our time, this 21st century, when it so many other institutions seem to beat shirking their responsibilities, you embrace your responsibilities. you show why the u.s. military remains the most trusted institution in america. that is the legacy that your generation has forged during this decade of trials. in iraq and here in afghanistan. that is the legacy that you are carrying forward. as general petraeus mentioned, one year ago i ordered additional troops to serve in this country that was the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks. all of those troops are now in place. thanks to your service, we are making important progress. you are protecting your country. you are achieving your objectives. and you will succeed in your mission. [crowd cheers] we said we would break the taliban's momentum. that is when you are doing. you are going on the offense and tired o

troops to afghanistan. among the positives, the report cited progress in dismantling and disrupting the leadership of al qaeda in pakistan; reversing the momentum of the taliban in afghanistan and recruiting and training afghan security forces. the president particularly emphasized the impact of u.s. air strikes against militant leaders hiding out in pakistan. >> today, al-qaida's senior leadership in the border region of afghanistan and pakistan is under more pressure than at any point since they fled afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it's harder for them to recruit; it's harder for them to travel; it's harder for them to train; it's harder for them to plot and launch attacks. in short, al-qaida is hunkered down. >> reporter: but the president was more cautious about the situation on the ground in afghanistan. >> progress comes slowly and at a very high price in the lives of our men and women in uniform. in many places, the gains we've made are still fragile and reversible. >> re

and victory in afghanistan in focus. and a child will lead them: why these hard hats have a soft spot for her. captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news world headquarters in new york, this is the "cbs evening news" with katie couric. >> couric: good evening, everyone. the bush-era tax cuts are due to expire in just over three weeks, but tonight house democrats are refusing to go along with the deal the president struck with republicans to extend them for everyone. the democrats held a private meeting today and decided not to bring the deal to the floor for a vote in its current form. congressional correspondent nancy cordes is on capitol hill tonight. nancy, the democrats are really angry about this deal, and they're letting everyone know it. >> reporter: they sure are, katie. in fact, reporters standing outside that closed-door meeting today could hear the house democrats inside chanting "just say no! just say no!" it was a stinging rebuke of the content of that deal and the way it was reached. >> but our caucus will n

from afghanistan is the director for afghanistan central asia. we have heard the tributes, but what do you believe of the significance of his loss as seen from government circles in afghanistan and pakistan? >> i think that it is a great loss for the world, absolutely. especially for the u.s.. i think that he has a reputation as a great negotiator and diplomat. a few things happen whereby his success in this arena did not match his early success. there were a few things that were very important. the general impression in afghanistan and pakistan as highlighted, the entire civilian aspect. he played a role in surviving the bill with a long term civilian links between afghanistan and pakistan. he also played an important role when it was decided through the u.s. aid to put more of the power in the hands of the afghan government would most of the aid funding going to the u.s.-based ngo's. >> if i might come in, there was some concern fair to say in islamabad about his direct, no- nonsense style. that he did not understand the culture and politics of

afghanistan is going to continue to be there. the u.s. will have to find somebody else to do the job that richard holbrooke was doing and do it as well. it is a job and people need to find a way to bring stability and insurer withdrawal at some point in the future of american and nato forces from their. they will have to [unintelligible] there are a host of civilian problems from the reconstruction to getting an afghan police force and national army up and going. in the case of pakistan, there is the issue of building trust between pakistan and the u.s. and getting over the mistrust our countries have towards one another. it is something that would require a level of engagement. i am not certain at this point who or how the u.s. government intends to replace what he brought to the table. >> just as a final thought from you. how would you sum up richard holbrooke in a sentence? >> he was a man of great passions and he was quite capable of being seen as very forceful. he was not a soft spoken diplomat all the time. he made it into an art fo

the battle against drugs in afghanistan is intensifying with a new player joining the fight a central asian drugs quartet has been formed here in moscow with russia pakistan to take a stand pledging support to call on the sidelines of the meeting or to talk to the afghan drugs chief and that interview is next here on r.t. stay with us for that. i wanted to have million russians are addicted to dan harrowing afghanistan produces ninety percent of the drug a u.n. resolution describes the flow from this central asian country as a threat to international peace and stability here with me today is the afghan counter anacortes minister mr is that our money thank you very much minister for being with me today. thank you i'm glad to talk to you. today the any a while you might have gotten drugs is about sixty five billion dollars that's five times bigger than the country's national budget who is behind this industry who takes the most benefit from it and instead we do a shark hunt out of the afghanistan itself as a victim of that evil afghanistan is a country with nine hundred sixty thousand d

there is no army, no country when you're dealing with afghanistan and terrorism in afghanistan. that's what makes it very difficult. but this man who goes all the way back to the vietnam war took everything that he had learned from that conflict and from other conflicts, bosnia, etcetera, and tried to apply them to what is going on now in afghanistan. and that was one mission, perhaps, that he was not able to accomplish but he certainly gave it his all. >> well, jill, richard holbrooke was known to be tough and straight forward and sometimes that approach worked well and sometimes it didn't work so well. what was his relationship like with hamid karzai? >> reporter: sometimes rocky, but he was able to accomplish something at least. they were able to communicate. but there were some rocky periods. even some of the people who work with him said that it was tough. he was very demanding. and some of them, only i would say the strong survived in that. he did not suffer fools lightly and he really wanted to push ahead. and dealing with the media, you know, we were on many press planes

the united nations says it's another threat to afghanistan's long term economic growth and security. it's what we call the coca-cola effect i mean people always talk about the demand creating supply but people forget that supply demand and that's exactly happening in afghanistan i mean if you think about the health issues you think i mean a.t.v.'s often starting among injecting drug use it has as well to do what you security i mean security forces and the high levels of addiction and security forces means that yes you will corrupt your security system so all those elements together means that there's a heavy burden for this country and with the limited resources available it's one mall of what they should not have within this country. local city that external and threaten them and the police do nothing more than chase them away or throw them in jail for a day or two then they come right back. today there are an estimated sixty thousand heroin addicts in the afghan capital and that number is rising fast many of them say they want help but the government can do little for them in the h

and that's not to mention the corrupt afghanistan government. so even if we had to go into afghanistan after 9/11, does the war still make sense today? that's the hot issue that's getting hotter. >>> plus, who's the grinch? did democrats hate christmas, that's argument republicans are seriously turning into an annual rite of the season. this year it's jim demint attacking harry reid because they don't want to work past the holiday. do they know how many americans are lucky enough to have a job and are working on christmas day? and skunk at the tea party, a new stimulus bill. the old gop guard is running committees right now. too much compromise with the democrats tea partiers say and they're ready to, quote, rod stewart to republican leaders, i know i keep you amused but i feel like i'm being used. >>> finally, he won't admit it, but yet another republican, let's call mike huckabee, was for something before he was against it. wow. and we've got the tape to prove mike ain't telling the truth. >>> we start with the two house democrats on the tax c

, is also on the ground in afghanistan. just arrived for our special series, "afghanistan, can we win?" he there to see how the war is going and what challenges the u.s. forces still face after more than nine years of combat. and george joins us now from kabul. good morning, george. >> hey, ron. >> george, the president did not meet, as martha was saying, with the afghan president, karzai. how do you think relations between the two and the fighting in afghanistan will be affected by the wikileaks documents being released, on the effort and in the afghan government? >> both afghan leaders here in kabul and u.s. leaders with the president in washington, say it's not going to have any impact at all. everyone is aware of the problems between the united states and afghanistan right now. but they're going to work through them. but it's hard to underestimate, to overestimate, the challenges faced by the corruption in the afghan government right now. we saw in those cables that the american ambassador here, to afghanistan, believes

fled afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it's harder for them to recruit, it's harder for them to travel, it's harder for them to train, it's harder for them to plot and launch attacks. in short, al-qaeda is hunkered down. it will take time to ultimately defeat and it remains a ruthless enemy bent on attacking our country. but make no mistake, we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization. in afghanistan, we remain focused on the three areas of our strategy. our military effort to break the taliban's momentum and train afghan forces so they can take the lead, our civilian effort to promote effective governance and development, and regional cooperation, especially with pakistan, because our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border. indeed, for the first time in years, we've put in place the strategy and the resources that our efforts in afghanistan demand. and because we've ended our combat mission in iraq and brought home nearly 100,000

ever in afghanistan. it's part of than effort to win the hearts and minds which is something that roots of peace has been doing for a decade. >> the grapes are a big change. citrus all kinds of fruits. it takes an extreme poverty situation $2 a day on their farm. >> thousands of farmers in afghanistan are voluntarily sign up with the northern california group of roots of peace. they are learning they can make more money growing grapes than growing opium poppies for heroin. >> they are in a desperate situation. you have a perfect situation for civil unrest. they need to see there is a right out of their hole. improving their yields because it dramatic rim proves are income. >> many farmers are being trained by of a gangs hired and trained by roots of peace agricultural experts. average athe farms average about two and a half acres. it's called a hector. >> it will generate about $2100. grapes seven to eight times as much. grapes is dramatically. they are making much more than the poppies. >> so the executi

. -- for example, india and afghanistan. there is amount of monetary commitment that will be entering and their strategy of employing these parks the actors is ultimately doomed is the message we have to get across. -- these proxy factors is to ultimately doomed, is the message we have to get across. >> alternately, it is afghans who must secure their country. and it is not nation-building because it is afghans that must build their nation. whether we are focused on disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan and preventing its capacity to threaten america and our allies in the future. host: with that strategy, how does governance in afghanistan lead into that? guest: what the president is trying to accomplish as quite minimalist. we are trying to defeat al qaeda and target other transnational terror groups that threaten us. unfortunately, the neat -- the means that we need to do that are somewhat maximalist. to prevent them from returning to afghanistan, you have to have someone competent afg

and it's not just in afghanistan. it has to be in pakistan and afghanistan. we have the advantage in afghanistan of having boots on the ground so that we can actually defeat, rather than just disrupt. we have to get that kind of capability as we look towards pakistan. that has to be done in partnership with pakistan got it doesn't mean you have to have american boots on the ground, but you need both. so on the counterterrorism site. the coin side of equation brings the structure to it. brings the enduring peace to the mississippi's that we talked about what was fragile. will we be able to endure. will the coin capability actually provide the sufficiency to endure as we go forward? that's the question that we are trying to answer. >> i'd like to ask about the issue of pakistan and pakistani safe havens. the pakistani government has made some moves in places like waziristan and swat, but usually after their own government has been directly threatened. you still have al qaeda and taliban senior leadership protected in quetta and karachi and in other parts of pak

>> surprises welcomed and not, the president pops up in afghanistan. the jobless rate goes up, not down. plus wikileaks has shown the diplomats as the most undiplomatic. this week on "washington week." >> we begin this holiday season, there's no place that i'd rather be than be here with you. >> talk about changing the subject. president obama takes a break from a week of domestic political struggles with a quick trip to afghanistan. but there are still many loose ends, including state of the war itself, lingering fallouts from embarrassing wikileaks disclosure. >> one of my counter parts said to me, well, don't worry about it, you should see what we say about you. >> and good old fashion gridlock over taxes. >> trying to catch my breath so i don't refer to this maneuver going on today as -- as chicken crap, all right? but this is nonsense. >> the deficit. >> this is it. no more fun and games, smoking mirrors, trickery, cunning c.y.i., demagoguery and making promises we can't possibly keep and rising on employment. covering the weerks yogi treason, doy

meet the oprah of afghanistan with george. afghanistan with george. again. ♪ for nights like these, there's special k chocolatey delight cereal. ♪ so you can get your chocolatey fix... ♪ ...without undoing your whole day. ♪ [ barks ] ♪ old legs. p.a.d., the doctor said. p-a-d... p.a.d. isn't just poor circulation in your legs causing you pain. it more than doubles your risk of a heart attack or stroke. i was going to tell you. if you have p.a.d., plavix can help protect you from a heart attack or stroke. plavix helps keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots, the cause of most heart attacks and strokes. call the doctor about plavix -- please? i will. [ male announcer ] certain genetic factors and some medicines such as prilosec reduce the effect of plavix leaving you at greater risk for heart attack and stroke. your doctor may use genetic tests to determine treatment. don't stop taking plavix without talking to your doctor as your risk of heart attack or stroke may increase. people with stomach ulcers or conditions that c

only have a brief mention about corruption in afghanistan? >> i think because it's a problem that doesn't have a ready answer. and in my opinion, it's the heart of the issue. >> the heart of the issue? >> yeah, it is. look. it's the u.s. military. it's nato. if you put enough american soldiers somewhere, they're going to win at least for a while. they're going to kill everyone who's fighting them. that's kind of a given. but the problem is that's not a long-term solution. we can't stay there for ever. the afghans don't want us there for ever. so to have a long-term solution, you need the afghans themselves to buy into this fight. to make this fight their own. but why would you -- if you were an afghan civilian, why would you do that if the government you're fighting to protect, that you're risking your life for is corrupt? it's a contradictory message we're delivering. >> peter, you see the corruption. you see these mcmansions going up in kabul which are owned by people associated with the government who earn a small fraction of a salary that

not afghanistan. we are -- the relevance of afghanistan to us is that it has a direct influence in terms of the stability of pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons and sympathies toward radical islam, a country that has a terrorist problem within its borders. host: james, thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe we should get out of afghanistan. it is just money we are throwing away. it is actually an opium war between the taliban and the government. there was a handful of people who started 9/11, and we spent a fortune so the culprit could make money on it. they took money out of the pockets of the people so heliborne and all of these people could make a lot of money on this -- so halliburton and all of these people could make a lot of money on this. i am telling you this is what is going on. it is scary. guest: i am very concerned about the costs. this whole theory of nation building as a cornerstone of counter insurgency -- i think the costs are unnecessary for it to r

it is not just in of afghanistan. it has to be in pakistan and afghanistan. we have the vantage in a afghanistan of having boots on the ground so that we can defeat rather than disrupt. we have to defeat that kind of capability. you need both. this brings the structure to this. this brings the enduring peace to this. will the peace be able to endure. will the capability provide the sufficiency to endure as we go forward? that is the question that we are trying to answer. >> i would like to ask about the issue of the pakistani safe havens. they usually only do this after their own government has been directly threatened. you still have al qaeda and taliban leadership detected in other parts of pakistan. what specifically do you plan to push the pakistani government? if they do not go ahead with this, what can the u.s. do? >> first of all, i would say that the pakistanis have indicated their willingness to move into other areas. as i mentioned in my opening remarks and as secretary clinton referred to, it is hard to overstate the impact of the flooding in pakis

the president was secretly flying into afghanistan, a 13-hour trip. he stayed on the ground three hours, giving a speech to boost troop morale in the holidays. and our jake tapper was the only tv reporter to make the trip with the president. >> reporter: the president touched down at bagram airbase at 8:35 at night here in afghanistan. it was a trip shrouded in secrecy for security reasons and his second visit to this war zone as commander in chief. the president's national security team will this month review the afghanistan strategy that he unveiled one year and two days ago, but that is not the reason why president obama has come to bagram airbase. he's here for one simple reason. to thank the troops for their service. >> please join me in welcoming the leader who made the tough decision to provide us the resources that have enabled progress here in afghanistan, our commander in chief, president barack obama. >> reporter: the president thanked roughly 4,000 troops. >> sometimes during the holiday season, that's when you feel the absence of somebody

about afghanistan, specifically. it's basically, do you believe that this administration has managed its relationship with karzai well? or not well? >> not well. i'm sorry to say. i think this goes back to the period before the wikileaks stuff because, you know, ambassador eikenberry's cable, had an input to the strategy review, a very highly-classified cable was leaked, damaging his relationship with president karzai. and then, all of the discussions that are in the book of mr. woodward, the leaking of extremely classified stuff, was far more damaging to the relationship and management of the relations with karzai than the wikileaks. >> karzai went from being a trusted ally of president bush, had regular video conferences with him, to somebody who has turned into a sort of paranoid leader, if you believe what people are saying, who thinks that the u.s. wants to overthrow him and topple him. >> there is a huge trust deficit. he would like to get a long-term security commitment, with the united states. we're not prepa

let us judge fairly afghanistan as a major manufacturer of opium is responsible for ninety percent of it on the other hand it's obvious that i hope you are wrong in the most restless areas we are but that this proves that there is a limit to international terrorist organizations on the taliban studies indicate of the taliban receives one hundred twenty five million dollars from drug exports therefore we can say international terrorists the taliban are organized crime groups are. those unable to commit a violent or to cut a grass when we say that millions of russians died from drugs nine hundred sixty thousand afghans are addicted to. afghanistan's efforts alone will not be enough while bank account is consumed five percent of drugs while the other ninety five percent are exported that's why we insist on international cooperation in the struggle against drug trafficking what is your strategy for fighting the trade more than. the drug problem has a domestic and an international side according to the strategy we've developed a joy told him exports were. trying to help poor peasants finan

obama drops in on troops in afghanistan to deliver holiday greetings. we are live in afghanistan. snow misery trapped for hour, and more coming down. we'll show you how people hit hard are coping with a crippling storm. one of the top stories you're tracking, the artist who had a camera, surgery implanted in his head. holiday season, visit with security troop, for security reason, undisclosed visit we found out about an hour ago. senior correspondent ed henry started reading the tea lives a little earlier than that. ed, what can we expect to unfold during this trip? >> well, tony, the president is going to address u.s. troops shortly. we're not exactly sure what time. the schedule has been changing on the fly. this is a surprise trip. president leaving andrews air force base 9:00 p.m. eastern time. reporters in the small group of the reporters who were there with the president were told to show up. it was all kept very secret. they had their bags and electronic devices initially taken away. so they wouldn't start sending out tweets or e-mails to everyone. they want to keep it as s

>> what i said in afghanistan is what i said before i went to afghanistan and what i'll happily say again today. which is the whole of nato and the isaf nations involved in afghanistan are all committed to transition to afghan control between the start of 2011 and the end of 2014. as that happens, clearly there will be opportunities either to reinvest troops into training missions or indeed to bring them home. and what the chief of the defense staff and i both said at the press conferencen afghanistan is it may be possible to bring some of our troops home next year. >> mr. david hanson. >> tomorrow, mr. speaker, the deputy prime minister will vote to break his election promise on tuition fees. this prime minister has also broken his electio promise to maintain the child trust fund for the poorest in our society. what message does this send to young people about trusting government? >> well, i seem to remember he was a minister in the last government that commissioned the brown review. yes. that went into the election -- that went into the election committed to cuts of 25% in the budget. n

and we were fighting for a political afghanistan. -- a pluralistic afghanistan. we were not fighting for power meant of the factions. we were fighting for a day where and afghan woman is seen as a human being and not as animals put in cages. what i meant, if the united states leaves us, up and says -- abandons us, through the excuses that this is no longer viable, it does not mean that we will give up. we will continue because we have not reached the stage with the enemy is defeated. the united states came to our country for three distinct objectives. defeat al qaeda, make the taliban irrelevant, and create a viable government for afghanistan. the question is, which one of those three have been achieved? in my opinion, we have managed or achieved the third, but not in a perfect manner. there are flaws in problems with that. hawkeye is not defeated. the taliban is not defeated. what bothers everyone in afghanistan and what has blurred the narrative for the war is the talk of reconciliation. we could reconcile with al qaeda and taliban on september 14, 2001? what w