while i don't think karzai is the democratically elected leader, he is the leader and i think it's a dangerous game for the united states to get into the business of trying to choose an alternative leader. we tried it in vietnam when we orchestrated a coup that got rid of the general there and the results were disastrous. i think we have to accept karzai is there, but since he is there and it means we cannot accomplish our goals, in the end i think if we can't accomplish our goals, we need to con seventh lives of our troops and the money. it's wrong to send people to a mission that they cannot actually accomplish. >> but that means you are, in a sense, giving up hope on creating a more stable afghanistan that would not be dominated by the taliban or would not have the possibility of being dominated by the taliban. you are giving up on the broader mission of afghanistan and retreating to a very much smaller counterterroism mission,