international will leave them after the combat mission in 2014. the taliban waiting for 2014. this is a signal for them as well that the u.s. and other international countries will stick around after that 2014 withdrawal but we'll see what other nations will also stick around to help the u.s. as they help afghanistan. dylan? >> thank you so much, atia. chuck todd is also with us. chuck, when you look at this through the policy context and the political context through which everything must now filter, what stands out from your perspective? >> well, look, the president is announcing tonight that the united states is going to have a commitment to afghanistan all the way to 2024. let's think about that for a minute. this war in afghanistan started after 9/11. so 23 years after 9/11, our commitment in afghanistan may formally, finally come to an end. as atia pointed out, this isn't just all about the troops, it's about resources. a few points about this agreement. number one, there is not going to be any permanent u.s. base. it not like enginegermany, not japan. any military force would be using the afghan facilities. that's number one. number two, the amount of money is not specified because that's up to congress, and congress will make that decision every year. what does that mean? there will be an annual lobbying effort. this is where i think the politics of this is not so cut and dry, and there may be a lot of people saying, this is an obama anniversary. it may be a way of doing that. but look how unpopular the war in afghanistan is. he's got to sit there and explain to the american people that while this is the beginning of the end of the military commitment in afghanistan, we're still a long way from the end of our commitment in afghanistan. for security reasons, it was the administration saying, hey, the mistake that was made in 1989 after the afghan people successfully pushed out the soviets, is our support ended, right? we walked away. then what came into the vacuum, the taliban and al-qaeda. what they're saying is the disagreement san attempt to make sure there is novak vacuum for future and em boldening of al-qaeda. >> i think everybody in america is more and more aware of that every day, and we are fortunate enough to have senator tom coburn with us who happens to be on the homeland security committee actually here. the authorship of his new book "the debt bomb" which will get into his diagnosis of the broader issues in just a second, but in the context of the news of the day, your initial response to the extent you even have one to the news. >> coming from a fairly conservative state, i can tell you there's big-time war fatigue in oklahoma as well in terms of questioning, what are we doing, what are we accomplishing? i think it will do well for the president to explain whatever this new agreement is is why we need to do it. what are we accomplishing? what are our goals and what's it going to cost? and i think that's what has to be answered. that's a question i get all the time. are we making enough headway to secure something that's worth securing and the cost in both human life and injury but also financial resources. >> how do you answer those questions? what is our mission? >> it's been a lesson a year since i was over there last, and what i saw was pretty impressive in terms of our reach in midst of the surge. we've seen some fallback in that in terms of the activity of the taliban, al-qaeda and afghanistan. plus, less than receptive words from the afghanistan government, and even though we have had some incidents that don't play well there, hthe reaction on their part, certainly is not applied well here. this is something where the president will have to lead on, and he'll have to get out there and explain exactly what he's doing if he wants the country behind him. >> is there an opportunity for that? in other words, when there is so much we find ourselves fighting about, is there enough for the cohesion and exit of this war that we may not have seen it since the war was initiated ten years ago. >> leadership is best when it clearly defines a problem, offers the solutions that can be there and then leads the why of what we're doing. not the what or the when or the how, but the why of what we're doing. i think that's the bar he's going to have to jump across. why. >> let's talk about the base theme in your new book "the debt bomb" which is that congress is what you use to describe the whole apparatus of the way decisions are made not just in the senate but the entire process. what do you mean with that statement and what is the sedative that is creating that effe effect. >> first of all, i made the cake in the book account that she made ten years ago. the greatest threat is not the taliban, not china, not russia, but our unsustainable debt. that's the greatest national security threat, admiral mullen said. think about how important that is. here's the head of our joint chiefs staff. in the forum religion, it hart death. for him to in a case statement tells us. i would put forth the sedation, and washington is manifested by the fact that here's the biggest problems our country has ever faced, our whole future depends on how we handle this problem, and we're not acting on it in any way, shape or form in congress. i blame that both on the president, democratic leaders or republican leaders. somebody has to stand up and lead in this country on this very urgent and severe problem confronting them. the sooner we address it, the less painful the choices will be. not addressing it because of the politics, partisan politics and political expediency. why is congress not in session this week? can anybody give an answer to the american people? with the problems that we're facing, with the unemployment we have, with the debt we have or the deficits we have, why are we not there working, solving the problems? it's because we're off so everybody can campaign for the next election. >> and raise money. my diagnosis goes to two things. one, i put it in one sentence to s say. and the reasons are myriad from gerrymandering to the resolving door. it goes on and on and on. what would you recommend to somebody in my situation or another american citizen. skpup say i feel disengaged because i see 196 of us are 10% of the money, and i see the 90% of the american people exclude themselves from the nominating process, and i don't see how you can resolve a lot of the things you're talking about and everything else if you don't address the participation and some aspect of either control or transparency. >> you're not wrong, but i follow a leadership. ul -- the reason it's so small is because people are turned off by the politics of today. we have a politics division. the history of our country, i'm just kind of thinking about this at 64 years of age. in my lifetime, every problem our country has encountered, when it's been significant, if you look back at the point in time we had some real courageous leadership whether it was john f. kennedy or reagan or even roosevelt, we had guys stand up, and what they did is they threw our country together. we had politicians on both sides of the aisle trying to divide us when, in fact, we had the greatest threat to our security is our economics future. and it's all about division. we're not working on any of it. and you're never going to solve the problem unless you can first identify the disease. as a physician, if i treated symptoms of disease instead of real disease, i would get sued all the time. the goal is to take what we all are feeling and say, what's the real problem? and it goes back to your question. the real disease is career politicians from both sides of the aisle whose this be one goal is to get reelected, and it's not that they're not great people. they are; they have great hearts. but they're human. and their goal is to be in a position to do something after the next big election. the problem is, once they win the next one, they don't want to ma make. >> the social security disability system is going to run out of money in 2.5 years and nobody is working on it? when we doubled the people on disability and we know 40% of it is fraud, nobody is working on it and we're barring $1.23 billion a year, and we're on vacation so we can campaign and make money? the real problem is who do we send to washington. >> it would seem to be that and the mechanism we use to select those people. >> i don't know if i would agree with that. >> gerrymannederring districts where the company. what kind of engineering firm, what kind of architecture firm, what kind of high skill, mission-based, execution environment would work with a culture that allows chief power tricks to get in the way of building the best bridge, doing the best heart surgery, designing the most secure and efficient building. . there's people expecting us to have the world's best government and they think we've got crazy. z we simply gain it. we game it through the power of in condemn temperature. let me make another point to you. the reason the americans should pay attention to this, because it's going to have a direct impact. if you're 50 and you have an ira, guess what? if you're a college student today and graduating this year, one out of two of you is going to get a full-time job. two of you, one out of three of. we're not having these. do you believe it. >> there's nolg in front of us we can't fix, but we have to come together it as a nation and say, yes. we have our obligation to take care of medicare helps seniors. they, hot spotting. we could kill renovation because we take a one size fits all skpl. we had a scent amendment which is why we have so many ideas coming out of diverse place in this country. we check it down. the federal government is the same size it was 20 years ago. >> and people say, you can't cut 10 paerks. the and ours is, well, we can't do that. that's baloney. we can and we will. i can show any american, here's what we're wasting and yet we're not addressing t. because when it comes to make a vote to get rid of one of those programs that's duplicative or connected, they have someone who will pay for the payments, and they're not putting their own police career or own political expediency, which a system has. it's nice to know it will be on the blog, but it's nice to not show something on the blog. >> what are you coming to wash -- i don't. so then to question 12 is, why are you even there? you don't want to have a budget, or not pick a program because it might be politically expensive, can we not treat history as americans? what john adams said, there has not yet been a republic that did not murder ift our. >> they say we should not defame our children. i know the audience on this program and a lot of other folks in this country who have seen in. they believe thaer. they're hospitals, and i think the things they most depend upon, i congratulate you on the book, obviously. to get more of what you just heard here, it's vt. >> come, come here, the politics and policy of his trip to afghanistan is no easy task. but it means to the future of our military troops in that rooj after this. person smiles more than 50 times a day? so brighten your smile a healthy way with listerine® whitening plus restoring rinse. it's the only rinse that makes your teeth two shades whiter and two times stronger. ♪ listerine® whitening... power to your mouth. is the pain reliever orthopedic doctors recommend most for arthritis pain, think again. and take aleve. it's the one doctors recommend most for arthritis pain. two pills can last all day. ♪ the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet? natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ see w thcarrots i grow make that new stouffer's steam mealo tasty. from my farm makes it soreamy, right dad. actually, the milk dad can see... boys! don'you ink stouffer's ste perfect b should get some credit? my carrots.my milk. taste so good wel bet the farm on it. the president is on the ground in afghanistan a year to the day he declared to the american people that osama bin laden had been killed. we'll address our troops in the nation in a prime time address at 7:30 eastern time tonight. msnbc obviously will provide full coverage of that. here, however, to discuss the politics of this or karen, susan and jimmy, our tuesday panel. i wouldn't want to have to explain to somebody why we would have to stay in afghanistan in any way, shape or form for ten more years. >> i agree with that. >> even senator coburn was actually very gracious in sort of saying the president has a challenge here with whatever he's going to try to communicate and be that even in his state of oklahoma, which by his own characterization, is a state that is pretty quick to be hawkish when it comes to american defense and suffering from war fatigue. no one wants to be a president. >> not only that, we're not saying how we're going to take care of our troops for the next ten years. there's so many problems right now. we need to focus on how we're going to take good care of our troops, how we're going to cycle them back, how we're going to take care of them once they're here and none of that is in the equation of staying in afghanistan for ten more years. >> i want out of afghanistan, so i'll just make the argument for what's going on here. >> karen is the deterrent for the u.s. policy. >> we have 90,000 troops to roughly 60,000 to 20,000. part of the framework is how that happens. i think you could make the argument that says if one of the barriers to security in afghanistan is a fear on the ground of the afghan people that, hey, once you're out, you're out. like everybody else, why should we trust you, have the president go there and sign an agreement that says, i'm going to stand with you, we're going to do the job we said we were going to do, and again, where i keep coming back, as much as i want our troops out, it's not just about afghanistan. it's afghanistan, pakistan, it's pakistan and india. the pieces make it not so simple as we're going to get out of afghanistan -- >> i would argue it is as simple -- sorry to interrupt you, susan, but i believe it is as simple if you're looking at the analysis that is being conducted on what is our mission? if our mission as a nation state is to have a secure and stable and peaceful nation that is relatively free of violence and aggravation, if you will, in this broadest sense of the word aggravation, that the mechanism to achieve that is widely debatable and it is unclear whether escalated military engagement drones or anything else ultimately provides for that. but for just being political, you're running for -- you're the incumbent president of the united states, you are running for president of the united states to get reelected, to a certain extent, flying to afghanistan, laying out the speech, laying out the plan is as much a discretionary decision as well as a mandatory decision. in other words, you can go through this decision without as much theatre or communication. i'm saying they made a decision to say, we're going to do this in a high visibility way so we can lay this out. what is the benefit to the obama administration of choosing this mechanism as opposed to some other mechanism which could be, perhaps, less high visibility -- i don't know what that is, but there's plenty of professionals who talk about these things. they obviously chose to go with a high visibility mechanism for this. what would the case for doing that be politically? >> my first instinct when i heard this was barack obama just lost my vote. that was my gut response. >> why? >> but what has to take -- first i want to hear what he has to say. afghanistan is a failed state. it's been a failed state for 40 years. the taliban comes from pakistan into afghanistan. we have paid billions of dollars for osama bin laden, and guess what, he sits there for 20 years and he plans his attack. we leave now, as much as i despies d despise us being in that country, they come back again. i just want to hear what the president says about that. >> they'll come back, but they're in pakistan. >> the point is the threat is a threat is a threat, and the question is how do you diminish that? do you give them a holiday? >> you can't sign a pact that says we're going to be with you and not actually be standing next to the person. so either karzai has to come here or the president has to go there. those were the choices. >> so what happens with this? this is total -- it's almost as if he and clinton came up with it. he signs this, congo po-- congress opposes this. from a political perspective, it makes total and complete sense. >> the only flaw in all this is i don't know why he did everything leading up to thisment i don't know why the campaign decided to take on romney. they were doing something so big with this, celebrating it, he would have had the cd, so i'm surprised they added that. >> those are the judgments along the way. the thing that most concerns me is when you look at -- i've always defined the mission in these militaries personally through the lens of security. to diminish the probability that somebody we don't know somewhere is going to require weapons of some kind that can inflict suffering. and what has become unclear is what achieves that. in other words -- and i'm a big fan of rhett greenwalds, for instance, who i knows worries about the outcome of all these. not evil, not stupid, none of that. but the consequence of that engagement tends to precipitate more radicalization or can precipitate more radicalization. you have to get the u.s. to do more than anyone else could to increase the threat of terrorism necessary to combat terrorism. that is an indictment of the policy that has been acclimated through the entire bush administration and has been perpetuated to a certain degree, and i just wonder if now is not the time to make an assessment. not just 10 more years in afghanistan, but are proven to diminish radicalization around the world. >> i think people are afraid to have this something. when we first went into afghanistan, yemen wasn't such a big issue. now it is. everyone is wondering how they're getting through it. the politics of it all, he says, we need to re-evaluate. >> that's where the re-evaluate or becomes military principle. how do we know that spring made everybody re-evaluate what was going on because you recognize they are actually war resources and the will to fight in places that had anybody ever. i think -- i think it need to. >> the only reason i end up skeptical of that belief and i'm sympathetic to it is i have yet to find anybody who can tell me what the mission is, beyond a platitude. >> to me i think that's an important question, but that's a different issue. it is related to the bigger question of what's the bigger picture in terms of security. because, again, it's not just about afghanistan. >> you do not have that threat assessment -- i'm thinking joe slestak right now, re-evaluate the military, then you cannot define assessments in the threat attempt. you have to know where you are or where you're going, and then once you know that, you can have a meeting of how you're going to get there, and my criticism continues to be nobody can tell me where we're going, and they can't tell me what the mission is beyond where we're going. straight ahead, the panel stays. breaking coverage continues on all this. we add to the conversation with two men who have been on the front lines, lieutenant colonel tony schaefer and jack jacobs join us after this. wake up! that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. for half the calories plus veggie nutrition. could've had a v8. hi, i just switched jobs, and i want to roll over my old 401(k) into a fidelity ira. man: okay, no problem. it's easy to get started; i can help you with the paperwork. um...this green line just appeared on my floor. yeah, that's fidelity helping you reach your financial goals. could you hold on a second? it's your money. roll over your old 401(k) into a fidelity ira and take control of your personal economy. this is going to be helpful. call or come in today. fidelity investments. turn here. ♪ [ female announcer ] life is full of little tests, but bounty basic can handle them. in this lab demo, bounty basic is stronger than the leading bargain brand. everyday life. bring it with affordably priced bounty basic. storm. we're about three hours from the president's address on afghanistan. we're with tony schaefer and medal of honor recipient jack jacobs. we were told before we came back basically the president has no choice. he could either lie about the next ten years and hope nobody talks about it, or he's got to seize the problem and explain his best way forward. >> yeah, well, if the election is going to be in november, the best time to talk about it and get it out of the way is now. he's got a great history and tradition of getting problems out of the way early and not having to deal with them later on. he did that the first time he was elected. but talking about withdrawal is one thing. we're going to withdraw conventional troops, but we're going to have special forces and special operations forces on the ground for a long time. among other things, the afghans will be going on raids, sure, of their own. the raids that really count, the ones that require air cover and air power and so on, we are going to be on. we're not going to let the afghans go wandering around and have control of air assets when we, in fact, want to control the air space. so we'll have people on the ground all the time. >> tony, and we've talked about this for almost as long as we've been talking about this war on this tv show, but how can you lay out a strategic vision of engagement, of disengagement, of regional engagement, regional disengagement, i don't care what it is, if there's not mission clarity? don't you have to have mission clarity first and then lay out what the operating plan is going to be? >> if began with the end and why. what do you want to achieve, and one of the things i've learned in dealing with this is that tom coburn cannot tell you what the mission is exactly. i agree with colonel jacob. he just said part of the mission has to be special operations forces. a recent survey done by a retired general, he briefed his visit. he said the mission will be based on what you want to achieve. we have not clearly defined that. signing up for another ten years is signing us up for another vietnam where we have all the resources in there. and the reason we left iran is giving stuff to the shaw which now is being used against us if we go to war with them. >> and if you look at history, jack, you don't have to be the world's greatest war analyst to understand the cultural difference between the army in any nation in ni where in the world with clear leadership and an army that has -- had watched its mission turn from whatever the objective was to its own sustainability. our mission is to not get killed today, let's make sure we don't get killed today. and when the mission ends there, when you talk to the soldiers that are reenlisting, two-thirds of them say, i'm going back because i want to make sure my buddies over there don't get killed. >> people don't think at all about national security, they're thinking they fight for the country and all that stuff but the inmates fight for each other. if we think we're actually going to transform a country that is rooted in the 7th century, we're sadly mistaken in that case, too. we're positioning people in south asia because we don't yet have a mission that can be articulated that you can absolutely achieve. we think we'll be able to respond to other areas that might be, but if we think we're going to change afghanistan and make it look like new york state, you're sadly mistaken, surely. >> if you were to look, tony, from a political perspective, what is the most valuable thing that everybody involved in this debate could contribute, whether it's an opposing political party, whether it is other members of the media, whether it is american citizens collectively to apply pressure to any sitting president, not just this president, but the office of the presidency in the context of war that would be beneficial to helping that president resolve some of these lack of mission clarity, resolve some of the lack of operating plans that comes to the consequence of a lack of mission clarity? >> susan hit it in the last segment very clearly. this is a political issue that's being played politically instead of looking militarily at what we need to achieve. jim got it right by the fact he said the source of instability is pakistan and it always has been. all the al-qaeda leadership we got after we won in afghanistan was really in pakistan, and all the days after 9/11 was actually located in korachi. we'll never be able to stabilize afghanistan as long as that exists. i believe al-qaeda is going to do things to make life difficult where ever we're at. i think we make it clear that pakistan is going to hold him accountable for what happens in afghanistan. but don't forget. >> very quickly, jack, how far is the conversation we're having here from the nature of the die log whe -- dialogue where decisions are being made? >> i think they're spot on. these are the conversations that are being had in the command authority. how do you influence pakistan? how do you make it easier for us to get whatever we're going to decide to accomplish. we're having a lot of trouble with those guys, the most dangerous country on earth at the moment. >>. thank you, tony. up next, setting the stage for the atct. the president live in afghanistan, setting the stage until 2024 for a mission to -- we'll find out. [ male announcer ] this is coach parker... whose non-stop day starts with back pain... and a choice. take advil now and maybe up to four in a day. or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. way to go, coach. ♪ it's kind of a big deal. chex has five flavors that are gluten-free. even a cinnamon one the kids love. the word "wow" comes to mind. [ male announcer ] chex cereal. five flavors. good and gluten free. the president right now in kabul, afghanistan where he has just wrapped up a meeting with karz karzai, the two agreeing to keep u.s. support for another 10 years, in 2024. the president is meeting the troops on the ground there. he'll address the entire nation waiting back home at 7:30. tonight the deal extends further u.s. presence in the country ten years after the world's longest war. over 2,000 american troops have been killed, 15,000 wounded. that's the human cost. the financial cost nearly half a trillion dollars. incomprehensibly large, not to mention the billions in non-m f non-military aide, et cetera, et cetera. annual cost to support one soldier is $1 million, and a huge amount going to vthe very people we're fighting against. the president lays out his case at 7:30 eastern. do keep it here for live coverage leading up to, during and after the president speaks. we're right back after this. whoa. right? get. out. exactly! really?! [ mom ] what? shut the front door. right? woop-woop! franklin delano! [ male announcer ] hey! there's oreo creme under that fudge! oreo fudge cremes. indescribably good. [ sneezes ] [ male announcer ] you may be an allergy muddler. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin® because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. zyrtec®. love the air. [ sneezes ] time out. sweet. [ female announcer ] with charmin ultra soft, you can get that cushiony feeling you love while still using less. charmin ultra soft is designed with extra cushions that are soft and more absorbent and you can use four times less versus the leading value brand. ♪ ah. [ female announcer ] we all go. why not enjoy the go with charmin ultra soft. and i thought "i can't do this, it's just too hard." then there was a moment. when i decided to find a way to keep going. go for olympic gold and go to college too. [ male announcer ] every day we help students earn their bachelor's or master's degree for tomorrow's careers. this is your moment. let nothing stand in your way. devry university, proud to support the education of our u.s. olympic team. aspirin? i don't really know what it's for. isn't aspirin like a vague pain reliever? aspirin is just old school. people will have doubts about taking aspirin for pain. that's why we developed bayer advanced aspirin with micro particles. it enters the bloodstream fast and rushes relief to the site of pain. we know it works. now we're challenging you to put it to the test. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer. then try it yourself and tell us what you think. president obama signed a new strategic agreement with president karzai, calling it a strategic moment at a time when our own government is in question. away from afghanistan, the mayday protests have been sweeping america. thousands across new york city. if you were a resident, you would know this. as we await comments, we hope, on tape from karzai and the president. we introduce ian bremer who is a president of the world's leading consulting firm and author of "every nation for himself." his book kpz what he calls a new world order in which every nation is most concerned with fending for themselves. basically a short term culture in government which is the very thing that the mayday protests and the guitarmy -- if it wasn't for the president in afghanistan today, there would be all these things -- >> no question. but it wouldn't be tomorrow. a number of months ago people were asking about wall street and then it stopped. we're not forced to make she's decisions. mayday is great for mayday. >> we're going to take the president in afghanistan. >> i, too, want to thank ambassador frank crocker and national security and their teams for the extraordinary work that brought about this day. i've come to afghanistan to mark a historic moment for our two nations, and to do so on afghan soil. i'm here to affirm the bonds between our countries, to thank americ america and afghan to sacrifice so much over the last ten years, and to look to a peace, prosperity and greater security for our nations. neither americans nor the afghan people asked for this war. yet for decades we've stood together to drive al-qaeda from its camps, to battle an insurgency and to give the people of afghanistan the possibility to live in peace. the wages of war have been great for both our nations, but today with the signing of this strategic partnership agreement, we look forward to a future of peace. together we've made much progress. we've reached an agreement with afghanistan and to put afghan relief on special operations. today we've agreed to be long-term partners in combatting terrorists, strengthening democratic institutions, supporting government and protecting human rights of all afghans. with this agreement, the afghan people in the world should know that afghanistan has a friend and a partner in the united states. as president, there will be difficult days ahead. but as we move forward with our transition, i'm confident that afghan forces will grow stronger. the afghan people will take control of their future. with this agreement, i am confident that the afghan people will understand that the united states will stand by them. and they will know that the united states can achieve our goal of destroying al-qaeda and denying it a safe haven but at the same time we have the capacity to wind down this war and we plan to do that in peace here in afghanistan. i am reminded of all who made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan, including members of your own family. i pay tribute to those afghans who have lost their lives alongside our men and women and sacrifice for their country. of course, our hearts are heavy as we remember so many who have died in this war. i'm grateful that this agreement pays tribute to the sacrifices made by the american people here in afghanistan. as i've said before, the united states did not come here to claim resources or to claim territory. we came with a very clear mission. we came to destroy al-qaeda, and we have enormous respect for afghan sovereignty and the afghan people. together we're committed to replacing war with peace and pursuing a more hopeful war with peaceful partners. we are dedicated to a future of justice, peace, security and opportunity. and i'm confident that although our challenges are not yet behind us, the future before us is bright. thank you very much. [ applause ] we're watching the president of the united states, along with the leader of afghanistan, president karzai, sign an ongoing pact for 10 years, effectively the transitional agreement and the agreement of support from the united states to maintain levels of support for the state in afghanistan. that commitment, of course, will be contingent upon congressional funding which will become, i'm sure, an interesting political football back here in the states. ian bremer is with us who just so happens is a foreign policy expert, to say the least. your thoughts when you look from -- hear the words, look at the realities and make sense for us through your eyes what is likely to actually occur in afghanistan over the next few years in the context of this agreement. >> look, let's be very clear. the u.s. wants out. they signed a deal, and this is a face-saving move for the afghans to show sovereignty for the americans to show that there's still some level of engagement, but this is the end of the war in afghanistan. it's what the american people want, it's what obama wanted from day one. and we've had a long time, not just us, the soviets before us, the brits before them. it's not been a happy environment. leaving afghanistan, of course, is better for the american taxpayer. it's better for the american military. it's better for the american polity. i asked folks, isn't it your turn? they said not no, but "hell, no." we're in an environment where as things get broken, we're not going to have the united states as the leader fixing it, and this agreement shows that very clear. >> what should the united states do for ims in reforming its own government, and what impact would that have on the rest of the governments of the world? and why do you believe that the responsibility of the way we govern ourselves culturally is such a critical result for us. >> the world does still have the world's best universities, and we dominate new technologies and all of that, but we have an increasingly large population that doesn't have opportunities for themz, their kids and their grandkids. you need to create education that works. but, unfortunately, our backs are not against the wall. in this environment, in what i call a g-zero world where there isn't global leadership, we're not italy, we're not greece. we're not forced to take these decisions. in fact, in a g-zero world where we aren't going to bomb iran, it's a much bigger problem for our friends than our enemies. my view is if you're being chased by an angry bear, you don't need to outrun the bear. you need to outrun the other guy. in a g-zero world the u.s. is faster than the other guy. the bear is not our concern. >> and being faster than the other guy for us is defined by our unique privilege of having the currency that the world uses to buy oil, that the world uses to trade in soft and hard commodities, copper, steel, soy, all those things. why is that such a unique privilege and what is the risk of having the privilege to be able to print money as a soluti solution. >> it's the dollar, ilts the size of the community. you can have mayday that you talked about at the beginning of the show, you can have occupy wall street. american political institutions are not under threat. it's not like china, the world's second largest commodity where you have this scandal and people are concerned, what about the sustainability of the chinese system. in you're going to make a big bet on china, where are you going? you're going to go on the united stat states. >> they should not make us think they can suddenly do rocket science. >> just because you are the stupid kid in the class doesn't mean you should be in charge. >> it's great for our ego, it's bad for our sustainability. we do have to invest in the long term, because the fact is, if we don't, not in the g-zero world but the world that comes, because you can't just have a lack of governance ad infinitum. we'll be in trouble. the future world will be a problem for the u.s. >> the book "every nation for itself," we have advantages that comes with all sorts of risks for all of us in the future, which is author's point. big news today. the president in afghanistan. live speech tonight. 7:30 eastern time, prime time coverage this evening and chris matthews with you right now. obama is the front. let's play "hardball."
Related Keywords
Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Japan , Australia , Iran , Afghanistan , Congo , China , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Kabul , Kabol , Pakistan , Oklahoma , India , Yemen , Italy , Greece , Singapore , Americans , America , Afghan , Chinese , Soviets , American , Afghans , Tom Coburn , Jack Jacobs , Karzai , Chuck Todd , Barack Obama , Tony Schaefer , Chris Matthews , States , Frank Crocker , Ian Bremer , Franklin Delano , John Adams , John F Kennedy , Karen Susan ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.