0 much but if it is significantly pushed back and what are you seeing in terms of flow to abbey gate. is it less people being allowed in or still a rush of people? which could lead to some -- what are you seeing today? >> so, what i can report as my discussion with the commanders there on the the ground is that multiple activities have taken place to increase the force protection specifically in communication with the taliban of how they are executing their check point operations and communication. so i would say there is multiple, i don't want to good into the details of the exact communication but that is happened. and what we've seen today is a little lessening of what we would say total capacity of people in and around gates. >> thank you. as -- said isis since yesterday, people were worried about everything about the taliban, they were psychologically and in a lot of situations. target and torture by the taliban. but since yesterday that isis created afghan people are more worried. do you think that it is another -- will stop in afghanistan, that way most of afghan people question and everybody now want to leave the country. because now is -- before it was only taliban and now isis also. do you think that is another civil war? [ inaudible ]. >> before i try to answer that question, i do want to take the opportunity on behalf of the department of defense to also make sure that we express our condolences for the afghan people who suffered in yesterday's attack. we know that there were a number of killed and wounded afghan civilians at the airport. and that there are families that are dealing with the same devastating terrible news that now gold star families here in the department are dealing with. so again on behalf of the secretary, we offer our condolences and thoughts and prayers. and i wish i had a crystal ball and know for sure what is going to happen in afghanistan. we don't. we obviously don't want to see the country torn asunder through civil war. but that is why whatever the future of afghanistan is from a governance perspective, we're going to stay engaged with the international community, to make sure that afghans, afghanistan's leaders are held to proper account for the way they are governing and that afghanistan's neighbors also try to play a constructive productive role in whatever the future of afghanistan is going to be. though we will not have a military presence there, the united states government will still want to see what -- what we could do with the international community to make sure that afghans can have the best of all possible outcomes for their future. but i -- i just, i think it would be foolish for us to try to be too predictive about what is going to happen right now. >> you have not changed the policy again to be involved again in afghanistan? >> the commander-in-chief has made a very clear decision that it is time to end america's involvement on the ground in the war in afghanistan and we're going to execute that decision. as we should. david. >> john, for the record, would you clear up the confusion over the service affiliation of the dead. it sounds like we have a total number of 13. but that is a break down within the 13 a little unclear. the marine statement said at this time. so can you tell us what it is and then i have a question for the general. >> i'm not able to break it down specifically right now, david. and i want to defer to the services to speak to their specific number of casualties. and you could imagine, they are having to make -- they're having to have difficult conversations with a number of families and we here at the department don't want to get ahead of that process. so i just i think on that one i would just defer to the services. >> and general, you didn't answer the question about whether the taliban have met general mckenzie's request to push the perimeter further out away from the airport. and he also said that he was going to ask them to close some specific roads. >> sorry if i didn't add that level of specificity. but just what general mckenzie said had a been passed to his commanders to have discussions with the taliban to take those specific measures but other activities that will increase the security [ no audio ] the discussions. i cannot report what actions the taliban have taken in the last. but i know that those discussions are happening in -- that have happened. >> okay, i have to get to the phones a little bit here. laura segman, politico. are you there, laura? okay. we'll back to you, laura, if you're not able to pipe in there. tony. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes, sir. >> okay, yesterday the president said we're going to be if a circumstance where i believe numerous opportunities will continue to provide access for additional persons to get out of afghanistan. this is after the 31st. you said either through means that we provide or provided through in cooperation with the taliban. you could give me a sense of the planning you're doing to take that direction to heart and what are the military implications of the president's desire for still removing people after the 31st, will there be continued talks with the taliban staging a force in the region to get more people out, et cetera? >> tony, i think my colleague at the white house and the state department have addressed this question before. i mean, we -- the inner agency, the u.s. government will pursue a variety of ways to help any americans who want to get out after our military presence at the airport has ended. to be able to help them get out. and it is -- while afghanistan is a unique case, it is not completely separated from the larger efforts that the united states government pursues all over the world when we know that americans are at special risk, we do what we can to get them out. and that doesn't necessarily involve the united states military. so i am not going to -- i wouldn't speculate one way or another about what is going to happen after this particular mission ends. but i would not envision a significant military role in that effort going forward. >> okay. >> barbara. >> back to what david was asking. if the u.s. military knew there were improvements to be made such as closing roads and pushing the perimeter back further, why wasn't this discussion engaged in before -- before the attack, why wasn't the point pressed, why weren't these improvements asked for by the taliban. because you're saying, general mckenzie was clear, he's asking for this now. >> well i'll tell you, from the very get-go, even before we had specific threat assessment, it was of paramount importance to general mckenzie, to the secretary and i don't want to speak for the chairman but think i can for general milley as well in this regard. i could tell you from the very beginning force protection was always at the front of everybody's mind. and force protection as you well know particularly in a dynamic environment is something that changes all of the time. and so as we got more information, we made adjustments to force protection measures to try to do the best we could at what we thought were the specific threats we were facing. and you heard the general talk yesterday about even overwatch in the air. and there was a lot of effort being done. which included, as the general said, daily communication with taliban about the nature of the threat and sharing with them the appropriate relevant information about what we knew. now clearly all of that effort and there was a lot of effort, clearly fell short in some way because this attack was able to be perpetrated and we did suffer as well as our afghan friends, suffer casualties. we're going to do the forensics on this, barb, and clearly try to figure out what went wrong. because clearly something went wrong. but it would be irresponsible if we didn't act immediately to just to double down and make sure that we were -- that we were being as anticipatory as possible because we still believe there are credible threats. in fact, i would say specific credible threats and we want to make sure we're prepared for those. and i don't think, and i'm sure you could understand, that just by virtue of the fact that we may be taking other steps doesn't mean that they would have necessarily been the proper steps for what we saw yesterday. we have additional information and so what i would tell you is we're -- what you're seeing us act on to the degree we could talk about it is based on information that we have. and i think i'll leave it at that. >> when you say you have additional information, can you tell us, do you mean you have developed additional information since the attack, do you still believe something is potentially imminent? >> i thought general mckenzie covered it very well with you yet. we certainly are prepared and would expect fute a -- future attempts, absolutely. but i won't get into what we're doing. without talking to intelligence, we're monitoring these threats very, very specifically. virtually in realtime and you could understand we couldn't get any more detail than that. tara. >> two questions for general taylor. in the wake of the attacks has the u.s. commanders on the ground had improved communications with taliban commandires not only in improving security but potentially in getting siv applicants or afghans through the gates and secondly, if the wake of the attacks since isis is also a problem for the taliban, is there potential there to coordinate to actually target isis? >> so, we say improved communication, i just want to -- i would answer that with we are continuing, you know, communication. so improve, i would say every day that is improving, because we have more repetitions. we're able to continue to have open lines of communication. so the specificity of what is being passed back and forth tactically to allow for a better security environment, i would say is improving because those repetitions are happening and the understanding of the taliban of what needs to take place is being reinforced. so i think, yes, and then your second question of passing on specifics like what are we looking for here, what is the threat that we need you to look for, yes, that is absolutely being passed from the commanders on the ground to the taliban commanders to ensure as mr. kirby said, things like yesterday we understand what to look for and we understand what the threat is to try to prevent it. >> specifically to target isis though. >> yes, those isis threats that could come in. >> and then secondly, there was a secondary explosion later yesterday where u.s. forces were doing controls detonations of equipment. you could talk about the type of equipment in the retrograde so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands either. >> so the type of equipment what was destroyed, i don't have that. but we have said that the commander has the authority there to destroy equipment that they feel are responsible. as we talked about controlled detonations, i think that was your specific question, that is what we call that, a controlled detonation that could take place if the commander decided to destroy some type of equipment. >> i only add that as i mentioned earlier, lives are going to be the priority, tara. so there will be -- you could expect that there will be other equipment and material things that will not be brought back with us. we're going to do this in a judicious way. some stuff will come back with us. but for the aircraft that are departed, as we get closer to the end of the month, we want to prioritize passenger seats as much as possible. so you're going to continue to see things disposed of in a responsible way and i think people would expect us to do that. >> john, what is the department's assessment of the capabilities of isis-k and is there concern that they could use afghanistan to launch attacks against the united states post august 31st? >> well obviously there are serious terrorist threat. and that was brought home to us in pretty stark ways yesterday. we take the threat very, very seriously. i don't want to -- i'm not going to speculate about future threats. what i will tell you the president has made this clear and the secretary has made it clear to the leadership at the pentagon, that we're going -- we're not going to allow attacks on the homeland to eminent from afghanistan like they did 20 years ago and we do have over the horizon counter capability to make sure that doesn't happen and i will leave it at that. >> do you believe that afghanistan could with stand isis-k, could defeat them? >> i think that the threat by -- from isis is real. and nobody wants to see that threat grow. i cannot speak, would not begin to speak for taliban capabilities or taliban intent. obviously there is significant animosity between these two groups. and they don't share interests. but i'm not -- it would be foolish for me to try to predict to the degree which -- what operations the taliban may conduct against isis-k. all i could tell you is the direction that this department has is to not allow attacks on the homeland to emanate from afghanistan again. and we are committed to that. as well as counter-terrorism operations elsewhere around the world. because the threat has metastasized outside of afghanistan to other places where we also have to maintain a focus and a degree of over the horizon counter-terrorism capability. let me go back over here in the back here. >> two questions. first, could you speak to any rescue ops that have happened since the attack. >> i don't think there has been any -- you mean by rotary? >> yeah. >> nothing additional. >> and the second question, which is probably more for the general. in the past days we've seen 89 to 94 flights leave kabul and somewhere between 125 and 216, could you explain why it fluctuates but the number of flights are relatively skedy. >> i think what you have seen, i'll break these into two bins. first as you look at the u.s. flights have stayed pretty steady, in the numbers. as other countries are coming in, they are evacuating certain numbers, you know, of where they are in their capability, a requirement. so i think that is where you've seen some of the differences in the outward flow. and i think, i mean, you have really have to go back to as my number is today, 1,000 -- 110,000 total. we have zero up to 110,000, we would see some of the numbers start to come down. >> let me go back to the phones. sam legrone. >> hey, john. as part of the exit, is it the u.s. intention to leave a functioning airport with readers that work, computers that work? what is the obligation for what you all leave behind. thanks? >> the airport is functioning, sam. and we need it to continue to function up until the very end. i think the general assumption is that as we depart, we're going to need to depart from a functional completely operational airport. that is our assumption going forward. that it will be operational right up until we're gone. and as you probably heard secretary blinken say the other day, that we're working with the international communities, there are sefrm nations that want to contribute to the effort to keep it operational and willing to work with the taliban to that end and i'll let them speak to that effort. gordon. >> in taliban operations against isis aside, any future things or whatever, do you have any assessment of what isis fighters at the prisons that they may have taken action against or killed other than some of the ones that we know about? >> i do not. i don't. >> is that something that is knowable? that you have sought to find out and can't find out. >> i don't know if that is know-able, gordon. i'm happy to take that question but i don't want to raise expectations on the level of granularity of what we got from the prison releases. i don't want to promise you a good answer. >> the 50,000 siv capacity that you referenced early. >> could we expect them to be processed in the same four straights or a capacity beyond the new jersey, virginia, texas and wisconsin? >> no, i think i added some extra facilities here today that i -- ones in new mexico, hallman air force base and two in virginia, quantico and fort picket. and the secretary has been clear that if we need more, because the demand is there, that we'll work with the states and we'll work with the services to identify potential future u.s. milt instillations but those are the ones that we're operating from now. >> a quick follow up. currently it is a 14 step process to get an siv application validated. is there going to be a change in where those are processed, are those being processed overseas and then brought to u.s. bases for final relocation? >> i honestly can't answer that question. that is really for the tate department. they run the siv process. it is not a department of defense equity. >> thank you. >> may i ask -- thank you. next time i will bring more. president biden said that also -- president biden said also the general mckenzie said yesterday that he had the international partners, have he or thought about military operations, the -- or our allies and what are the primary u.s. primary military options? >> so i can't speak for general mckenzie. and the discussions other than what he said yesterday is, you know, continuing to coordinate with all of our allies and partners that are helping us with this rielg now is extremely important. so the ability to continue to synchronize all of the airlift that continues to come in. and ensuring that as timing goes forward, all of that is well-planned together is extremely important. i think i have to turn it over to back to general mckenzie for any of those other specific questions. >> and another one. what are the units special reasons for our allies and international partners? do we have any -- from them. >> i'm sorry? >> what wishes. >> from the operational side i think the it is just like i said earlier, it is continue that support and the work together as we continue this mission is extremely important. thank you. >> can i follow up about something that gordon asked about. which is hearing some reports that there have been some attacks by isis-k against taliban check points in the city. are you seeing any evidence after tacks that isis-k is attacking those taliban -- >> i have not seen those reports. >> and you could give us clarification on the the sharing of american citizens information as well as siv information with the taliban. there were reports yesterday that the u.s. officials were sharing that information. >> yeah, i don't think there is sharing information as you would say in that question of like we're giving information. what information is very important right now is at the ground level to ensure that as people approach check points, that those taliban checkpoint leaders have an understand who is coming, what documentation they are supposed to have. because that is really important for us to ensure that the time that people are not in areas and just staying there for long periods of time, you know, the commanders on the ground are continuing to coordinate. how do we continue to increase that through-put through checkpoints and gates to get on h-kia as fast as we can. that is very safe to get them there. thanks. >> how many troops, u.s. troops are still on the ground at h kia and how is the security posture of the gate changed? there are more or fewer troops going in and out of the gates and is there more over watch in the crowd for suspicious activity? >> back what mr. kirby said earliers with we talk about troop numbers and capability. capability has not changed for us to secure all of the gates, to be able to process evacuees and our ability to rapidly turn aircraft as they arrive and get -- as we about forced protection at the gate, i'm not going to get into the specific ttps that those junior leaders are taking down there other than we continue to learn every day from the day before. and we work within all of the capabilities we have to ensure, one, that we could continue people to come in, but also stay safe. >> when you say continue to learn, does that mean you have to switch things up in order to make it more safe. >> i would say patterns are things that we try not to, you know, get into. so, i would just say as the most simple operational piece that we're always doing things that we can to keep us safe and not create patterns. >> i would only add to that, as mentioned, we still have active threat streams and we're taking steps that we believe are appropriate to those streams. and i think i'd leave it at that. and i want to foot stomp the boots on ground number. as the general mentioned in his opening statement. more than 5,000 today. we are not going to get in going forward to a daily count of what is on the ground. just going forward as we get closer to the end of the month and the end of the mission, don't expect daily updates on what exactly how many troops are there at any given moment. mike. >> yeah. when you say there is going to be an investigation into what happened yesterday, are you talking about a full criminal inquiry with forensics people on the the ground and interviewing possible witnesses, who would be doing that and how do you that in the middle of a war zone? >> i wouldn't characterize it as a criminal investigation. but it is as comprehensive as general mckenzie needs to be to do the forensics here to figure out what happened and what we could learn from it going forward. it is a very complete and thorough investigation and i will leave it to general mckenzie to describe for you sort of the architecture of what that is going to be. but it is not like we haven't sadly had to do this before. >> right. >> and we now how to conduct these investigations. yes, sir. >> [ inaudible question ]. my question is strategy. do you think you're able from afghanistan to use your control in the pacific, the u.s. control? [ inaudible question ]. >> it is not about u.s. control in the indo pacific. it is about protecting our country from threats and challenges that imnate from that part of the world and about revitalizing our network of alliance and partnerships to help our partners in the international community do the same. that is why the secretary's first trip was to the region and the vice president just returned this morning from the region. we are laser focused on the indo pacific and the security challenges as well as opportunities that are there. it is not about u.s. control. it is about u.s. partnership. silver, you've been patient. >> i know you don't want to speak about the details of the circumstances of the attack, but could you tell us if it was at the gate itself or in the middle of the crowd or at the checkpoint, was the guy walking or was he in a bus. you could give us a little details. >> first i'll start off with details or continuing to be collected as it goes back to the question about continuing to learn as much as we can. because as you know, when attack initially starts, you know, you have to fight the fight. then we're right now ensuring that, you know, the respect and dignity of our wounded and those that were killed in action. so but as as we look at the details, as we saw yesterday at about 17:48 kabul time, there was what we reported as a suicide born vest there that was exploded right at and around the gate. we don't know the exact location. you know. but it was right outside in the vicinity of that gate. and then followed by direct fire from an enemy position that is not exactly known. that is the outside and what we would call north of that gate area also. >> how many assail ants, was it just the suicide bomber or how many people -- >> it goes back to what i said. right now what we know, there was shooters, don't know the exact number. but one with a suicide vest. >> go ahead. >> we've already got you. louie go ahead. >> was anyone killed by that gunfire? >> like i said, we're asking very detailed questions about the fight that that will continue to be collected. i can't answer, you know, numbers. that is just i would say, you know, that could come out. but just knowing the facts, the incredible, you know, devastate that happened there, i think we should just leave it there. >> hang on just a second. >> so, my question, i'm following on leta's earlier. yesterday the president said you will hunt down and get revenge on the isis attackers yesterday. you could explain to the american public, who might be wondering we have 25 troops on the ground what will that look like if we go into a situation where we're going to go and hunt down these isis? >> i think as we look at currently, i've already, i think i've answered that question of we have, you know options there right now that we can, you know, ensure the commander has the ability to take action as those opportunities present themselves. but i'm not going to go into and try to think about the, you know, how a decision general mckenzie would make in the future operations. >> just a quick follow up on the the gunman. was there more than one gunman and was that gunman killed or what -- >> as i said, those information is still coming in. i would say what we do know absolute fact there was a -- you know, a suicide born ied right there and gunfire. that is for sure that we know. >> other question is going to be this. we have 31 american casualties overall. that is a significant number at one location. i mean, what -- how could we explain why they were -- were they concentrated in one area, was there a shift change und underway or were they spread apart in one line and that is just -- [ no audio ] >> going to be rewarding to you. but it goes back to the commander will figure those out at due time. and those questions are appropriate. but right now, what i could tell you is the commanders continuing to execute the miss, make sure that other forces in there could continue there and ensure that that information, i think of the couple of questions that we answered earlier will come at the proper time. >> this question is for general taylor. i know it has been said numerous times that the focus of the mission is get evacuees and americans out as quickly as possible but for those injured during the attack yesterday and taken to the local hospital, has there been any talks about setting up security for those individuals, i'm hearing reports on ground there are concerns that isis may attack that hospital. so are there any talks to possibly help keep those afghan civilians, excuse me, safe from a potential attack and then once they are well enough to travel, how will they get to the u.s. as well? >> you're talking about afghans that were injured in the attack? first of all, what i can report is that there were some afghans there that were part of that that were treated, by, you know, u.s. and other forces immediately there. i'm not fully aware of the reports of on the hospitals in kabul because i do know there were afghans taken to multiple locations in kabul. >> we'll have time for just a couple more. >> mr. kirby, you said that lives are the priority. so my question is pretty state forward. should the u.s. or americans expect more u.s. casualties in the next few days? >> i don't want to see any more casualties. that is why we're monitoring the threat streams very closely and taking what we believe are the best possible steps to prevent another tragedy like this from happening. i mean, that is -- the secretary was made that clear to leadership and last night and this morning that force protection is a paramount concern as it always does. >> and to add to that, apparently there is a bottleneck at the airport coming with refugees at dulles airport. are you aware of this or a refugees being stuck on the tarmac for hours and hours. >> yes, we are aware of those reports and they have proven accurate in the last couple of days. it's really more an issue for customs and border patrol and the process. so i don't want to speak to them or their process. but as we understand it, this morning, they have worked through the difficulties and we believe that wait time now upon landing is going to get much, much shorter. but i would refer you to my colleagues at customs and border patrol to speak to that. okay. thanks very much. one more. go ahead. >> how many afghan sivs have been flown out so far or afghans without green cards or -- >> check me on this, but we looked at the number just before coming out, it is just -- we have just under 7,000 now that are in the states and being processed and that number will change every day, obviously, as it should. okay, thanks everybody. we'll see you again -- i said 3:00. it is 3:30 this afternoon. general van herk will join me. i do apologize for the delay this morning. we were getting updates as we were getting ready to come out to see you. we'll do the best that we can to be more punctual. i'll see you later. >> i'm kate bolduan. we've been watching an update from the pentagon. and taking questions from reporters on the explosions and the attack of yesterday in afghanistan as well as an update on the the evacuations from kabul. but joining me right now, let me get over to nick paton walsh in doha qatar today, tonight. two of the major headlines that i picked up on were they now believe there was only one suicide bomber. not two explosions as was initially reported. additionally they said that they in the past 24 hours, they had 300 americans they were able to fly out and evacuate in the midst of this. i'm not sure and you tell me what you're hearing about the fluidity of the numbers on the ground but i'm not sure where that leaves how many americans were left in the country. >> reporter: no, it is extremely unclear. and the state department's latest comment on this suggested there were a thousand people they were concerned about. but they thought the vast majority had kind of made plans. now, it is possible that the 300 is separate to the 500 that we were informed of that have been flown out yesterday. so they could be getting through, the remaining american citizens in afghanistan at quite a fast clip. it could make sense. and a source familiar with the situation at the airport said look it is hard to understand if you're an american in afghanistan that you're still interested in leaving if you haven't already come forward. they're in the closing window here. but what you mentioned about the suicide attacker there is very interesting. it shows frankly how enormously complex investigating this is and fraught for the pentagon at this stage. of course, they have to be sure that nothing they say about this situation confer the compromised security particularly their relationship with the taliban. so gone from a place where we were talking about gunmen yesterday in the cent com and two blasts to the possibility of one gunman who was also the suicide bomber. hard to understand to be honest how the suicide bomber could have got as close as he seemed to have done to those marines outside of the gate, while still still firing. but this is something that ti think they're trying to investigate slowly and give the correct answers. but they may be hard to come by given how chaotic and crowded that particular scene was. but it shows the dangers moving forward. it shows how little information they certainly publicly appear to have have to go on when testimonies could to planning for future threats. we got an indication about how the evacuation is going to start looking going forward. i do think we're going to get a bunch of information how this progresses probably for security reasons. i spoke to a source directly familiar with the situation in the airport who said it looks like the evacuation operation was beginning to wind down now. again we heard there they will continue to evacuate people to the end. but it is going to come a time when that capacity to process new arrivals in that airport diminishes because they don't have the personnel there any more. this is a exceptionally fraught operation. john kirby talked about the withdrawal and the evacuation moving together, balancing each other and adjusting as yes. but essentially this is now -- isis-k are somewhere in the mix potentially with further suicide bombers and they have to withdrawal the last troops in america's longest war from the surrounded singular air base at some point in the next three to four days. a gentlemen difficult challenge at the best of times and it seems to get harder every hour. kate. >> and stick with me. you describe it very well of kind of what we also saw in this press briefing and let me bring in retired lieutenant general mark hertling on this. it seems evident from how john kirby and general taylor were talking that they seem even more careful with their word choice today and as nick is getting to, in order to do everything possible to not further compromise this security and further endanger the troops on the ground. one question, general, that was not answered, that i found really interesting, is when john kirby was asked if they're believe -- about the belief and the understanding right now about if the taliban intentionally let the suicide attackers through their checkpoint or if it was unintentional and a massive security failure. they still don't know. they say. >> yeah, kate, i'll push back a little bit and say the suicide bombers are the hardest enemy to deal with. because i'm sure john and john taylor were both saying that because they just don't know yet. but i would really find it hard to believe that this was an intentional action to let a suicide bomber through the taliban check point. because i know that the taliban and isis-k have been fighting each other and are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of what they believe is the future of afghanistan. and this was as damaging to the taliban as it was to the reputation of america. certainly the taliban wants to portray themselves as protecting the citizens of kabul, being on the verge of taking over the new government and if we were to look back over the last year or two at the number of suicide attacks by isis-k inside of kabul, or inside of other places throughout afghanistan, you would find quite a few of them. and every single time that the people have blamed the ghani government for not protecting them against this kind of terrorist attack. so this was truthfully concerned me from the very beginning. i'm sure it concerned the commanders on the ground. a suicide attack, as soon as you -- the bomber comes up to your checkpoint, whether it is taliban or american, if they're discovered having a suicide vest on them, the action that they usually perform is to punch themselves off and turn into a pink cloud. unfortunately, somehow this individual got through the taliban. but the investigation will show whether or not or could show whether or not it was intentional, but my gut tells me it certainly wasn't because this hurt the taliban badly as well. >> and i want to get to the question about retaliation. but let me ask you about it general hertling. but president biden said yesterday, he said we have some reason to believe we know who they are. and taking them out, the isis, whoever masterminds this and taking them out it would seem to be the first real test of the over the horizon capability that we heard from the president and we heard more about in this pentagon briefing. how capable is that strategy? >> well, i mean, the president could have said we certainly know who they are. but then the issue is targeting. because these are cells. and that is how you target a suicide bomber cell. you don't go africa t-- go afte the bomber itself. if they have a vest on and approaching a check point, that is the hardest mission. what you try to do sos go after the cell producing the bombers, influencing and drugging the bombers and getting equipment for the bombers. so there may be a very good indication that somewhere in the urban area of kabul, there is a suicide network of which this particular bomber came from and targeting that is, you think it is very easy. send an f-18 over the scene and bomb the house where they're making the vest. but unfortunately it is not always in a certain location that you want it to be. so the issue is tracking those cells. and that is what an intelligence network does. is it provides you information on the the movement, the capabilities, the actions of those kind of cells and that is unfortunately what i think we've lost a lot of it as we move forces out of afghanistan. >> yeah. let me get over to the jeremy diamond standing by at the white house. jeremy, what are you hearing from the white house about this today, about the president's promise of retaliation? >> reporter: well the president made very clear yesterday that the united states will strike back at those responsible for that attack at a time and place of the u.s. military's choosing. he said they would strike with force and precision. we don't have any more details from the white house about exactly when that would take place nor do we have that official full and complete confirmation from the intelligence community attributing this attack to isis-k. one thing that i think was notable from this briefing was how direct and how specific admiral kirby as well as the general were about the ongoing terrorism threat. he talked about it being specific and credible threats an also said we are prepared and would expect future attacks which is really remarkable when you think about the fact that these thousands of u.s. troops are expected to remain at the airport for the next four or five days until that final withdrawal on august 31st. and i spoke with a senior white house official this morning who also emphasized this point saying that the threat is still out there. it is heightened and it is certainly something that the president is being updated on constantly throughout the day and something that he's very concerned about. and it is eerie almost the extent to which the warnings are so similar to what we heard from the president and white house officials in the days leading up to yesterday's terrorist attack. and so obviously there is a sense of heightened concern. and again john kirby saying we're prepared and would expect future attacks. >> i think he said something about the specific threat is that they are picking up on the the intelligent. jeremy, thank you so much. general, appreciate it. nick paton walsh, thank you very much. here is the latest understanding of how the attack played out at the kabul airport. and again as we just heard in the pentagon briefing there is a lot that they still don't know. according to the head of u.s. central command, an isis attacker wearing a suicide vest apparently passed first through a taliban checkpoint and then gained access to the airport gate manned by u.s. service members when detonating the vest. and i want to show you video, this is the interface point where u.s. personnel, they are -- this is where the gate that they were talking about, where u.s. personnel kind of have this very dangerous moment where they have to do a physical search of each person before they are allowed to pass through and enter the airport. and here is why yesterday general mckenzie explains that point is so dangerous. >> this is close up war. the breath of the person you are searching is upon you. while we have overwatch in place, we still have to touch the clothes of the person that is coming in. >> this video that we're showing right here shows just what the general is describing. video taken by pbs correspondent jane ferguson days before the blast. you could see just how close, how dense, the crowds of afghans and u.s. troops are. they are literally touching each other. joining me right now is award winning correspondent for pbs and news hour jane ferguson. thank you for coming in. the videos that you've shared and you've taken are really important i think to kind of understand what has happened. the area where the expositions happened, you know it well. we could see it from your videos. could you describe for me what we are seeing and hopefully we could play the video again at the marines touching and holding back a group of afghans trying to gain access to the airport. what are they doing there? >> it is hard, kate, to over state just how chaotic the scene was in terms of security. people talking about it having been secured by the taliban and was basically not really a reflection of how the chaotic the scene was with the checkpoint. so in that footage, you could see the soldiers trying to control crowds of americans or afghans already past the taliban checkpointch as a check point, it is not a check by the taliban. they've essentially sort of started to try to filter women and children through at the front. they attempt to prioritize them, but they don't really check people entirely. very often their just harassing people. so whenever the americans and there were also many other soldiers there from britain and allied nations first come in contact with the afghans as they come through, they are essentially standing face-to-face with people who haven't been checked and it is not possible to. so this is after all an open road. it is a road to the airport. so people just drive as far as they can and then when the traffic becomes too bad, they get out of their cars and they walk and they meet with american soldiers there. so it is completely completely exposed. and people are pushing hard to try to get in and essentially, you know, the american soldiers are trying to prevent a stampede. this is hardly like an orderly checking. >> i want to show what it looked like at the entry of the gate. this is video from days before the attack. tell me more about that be area. how you would describe this. >> reporter: a abbey gate, you can possibly see, the containers. they had taken the containers and put them to try to put the crowds back to funnel them in slowly. this was largely manned initially by soldiers. this was by the hotel and turned into a garsen almost. that was one of the worst choke holds. when we first arrived there, immediately after the taliban took over the city, and people started to come in for these evacuation flights, you had taliban firing off rounds in the air, trying to keep the crowds back. i mean, you heard it all day long. automatic gunfire in the air as the taliban would try to sort of intimidate the people into keeping back. and it's that spot where you saw people killed over the weekend, there were seven last weekend, there were seven people crushed to death right around there where the containers were and where the entrance to the gate is. so basically, like this was one of the most painful spots for afghans trying to get through. many of us are getting calls from contacts and friends and families trying to get in touch with us and saying can we come to the airport in it was the one place many said don't come. it's too dangerous. >> a u.s. commander said the working assumption is that the attacker first made it through a taliban check point. we heard from the pentagon briefing just now they're not really sure what the breakdown was. and how that attacker was able to get so close. how the general put it yesterday when it comes to the taliban check points is sometimes the searches are good. sometimes they're not. what has been your experience with that taliban perimeter? >> from what i could see, the taliban weren't necessarily there searching for security. they were helping to try to prevent surges of people. now, many observers and soldiers i spoke to felt that the taliban had been almost sort of filtering people through but at times applying pressure but allowing more people through. so applied pressure, released pressure. there was a little bit of that going on because it was quite on and off. but the taliban soldiers that were there were not necessarily searching people. they certainly weren't looking for -- from what we could see weapons. they were essentially trying to prevent a stampede. to actually pat people down and go through them would have been impractical, given the crush of human beings that were coming toward them. and so it -- it's not actually surprising to me having seen the area that someone with a suicide vest could have gotten through, because this was an open rope safe for a small funnel where people were coming through, but they were funneling people so they didn't rush the scene. not so they could do a thorough check of people. and many people were just wandering around freely, and there was no real barrier between any of the soldiers of any nationality. and individuals who were able to walk through. >> you know, a journalist working with cnn who is in kabul still reports that now, today, what they've seen are very few people gathering at the airport. at the airport, and the way this has been described to cnn is people are not allowed to go to the main gate and now almost 500 yards before the gate, the taliban is blocking the road with their cars. i'm curious what you think. how different that is, and how it's been described to us. it's becoming kind of the situation right, where most western reporters have had to get out and go to doha because of security situation. what do you think that actually means in terms of evacuation efforts and what the security could be there now? >> well, in terms of the crowd diminishing, it's likely a number of things. the taliban had announced well before this explosion or this series of explosions that they were going to stop afghans getting to the airport. they had announced that it would be for foreigners only. that they really didn't want the atrocious brain drain that was happening. i mean, the country's most educated were showing up at the impaets of the airport. the taliban had already started to really restrict movement. but also, of course, the blast is going to scare people off. i mean, you have to remember that kabul has been menaced by isis for several years and isis attacks are notorious for the brutality and absolute determination to kill civilians. these are the attacks that hit girl's schools and wedding halls. in terms of the psychological impact on residents of kabul, there's this definitely has an impact. you know, as to whether or not they're going to go to a certain area or avoid something or avoid an event. this has been going on for years. >> absolutely. it's hard to understand how you can expect anyone after the carnage that we saw from yesterday why they would've contemplate rushing back after a dramatically different security apparatus in place which we know is not happening. jane, thank you for your reporting. appreciate it. >> thanks, kate. joining me mow for some more perspective on what we've learned and just what we have seen in the last 24 hours, play out in afghanistan. john is a former ambassador to iraq, former director of national intelligence. ambassador, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we heard from the pentagon an update. still there's a lot to understand about how this attack played out. but just your reaction to this attack? the death of 13 u.s. service members. still in many -- many more afghans. the white house has been warning of an attack threat c they called it, that's been acute and persistent. today they said specific even. was this not -- if this -- was this not a matter of if but when? >> well, i mean, it was -- the security situation just looks very, very dangerous. i mean, you don't, i think have to be an expert to look at the images there of people crowded up against walls, trying to press into through narrow passageways, getting inside the airport, so on and so forth. i think it was something -- it was a risk that always existed as long as this evacuation is taking place. and i think it will exist right until the very end. >> you know, president biden has said in his remarks that he is sticking with the deadline. that's how the pentagon is operating as we just learned this hour. they're sticking with the deadline. but by leaving the president, may not be able to bring every american and afghan ally out on time. and safe from taliban control. but staying longer would almost certainly expose u.s. troops to even worse danger. how do you choose, ambassador? >> well, the president made that point yesterday. if we decided to prolong our stay indefinitely, i think he felt that that would ensure resumed conflict of some kind. first of all, i think getting 100,000 people out in the short period of time that we've done that in is quite an accomplishment. i think we've accomplished the bulk of our mission. there may end up being some people left behind. certainly on the afghan side there will be. but even if there are americans left behind, i think there will be other ways of getting them out. they'll be able to come out over land. across into pakistan, iran. uzbekistan. i don't know. there may be some arrangements that can be negotiated later on with the taliban or the government that is running kabul to come back in and take some more people out. but for the time being, i think we should expect the president to stick to the deadline. i think that's probably what he ought to do. and get our military and the people out of that airport by the time he said we would. and i think it's -- it's very -- it's a dicey proposition as to whether or not we'll have another terrorist suicide attack or not. >> ambassador, i'd also like you to reflect on the striking parallels between an american trying president vowing to do the same thing 20 years ago. here's biden and george w. bush 20 years ago. >> we will respond with force and precision at our time at the place we choose, in the moment of our choosing. >> the nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. this conflict was begun on the timing in terms of others. it will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing. >> how do you reflect on that, ambassador? >> well, my first reaction when i heard him say it yesterday was what he is saying is we have our eyes on these people. we know -- we have information that gives us some pretty good sense of where they are, and where they're operating from, and that we will not hesitate to use that knowledge and our counterterrorist capability to go after them at some point in time. and so i'm quite confident that we'll do that. but it's going to be after our troops have gotten out of the country. it will be with some standoff capability or some other resources that we have available to us. but it won't be the troops that are stationed at kabul airport at this particular point in