>> brown: from our "american graduate" series: a photographer documents the lives of high school drop-outs now in juvenile detention. >> the word expectation is really key to who they are. their families have limited expectations of who they can be and they themselves have limited expectations. >> woodruff: and we get two views on defense secretary leon panetta's statement on ending the u.s. combat mission in afghanistan by the middle of next year. >> brown: that's all ahead. on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: the people of egypt faced a new crisis today. a bloodbath involving soccer fans sent fresh fighting surging through the streets of cairo. we begin with a report narrated by jonathan rugman of independent television news. >> it's a familiar scene from egypt's unfinished revolution: protestors clashing with security forces tonight on the road to cairo's interior ministry near tahrir square. yet the spark for all this was a riot from which scores of fans have returned home in coffins throughout the day. the home side in port said should have been celebrating victory last night. instead, their fans stormed the pitch. they attacked the visitors' supporters with knives, clubs, stones and even fireworks. 74 people were killed. fans of cairo's al ahly club suffocated in stampedes as they tried to escape. even their team was chased from the ground. egyptian police, for the most part, standing aside either through deliberate negligence or fear of making a bad situation worse. the result: the players' changing room suddenly converted into a makeshift hospital. the team's portuguese coach said he was beaten and that he'd seen fans die in front of him. while tv sports presenters were hanging their heads in shock and disbelief, a scandalous night for football has reignited angry protests demanding egypt's generals give up power. >> ( translated ): we were pushed off the high seated section at the top of the stadium. those who fell died, and none of the security tried to stop it. i was struck by a knife twice, in my hand and head. >> reporter: the protests began at cairo's railway station, egyptians chanting for the military's downfall as trains brought back surviving football fans. "my son hasn't answered his phone," said this woman. "he's 18 and from cairo. please, i beg you, help me find my son." at the stadium itself this morning, the wreckage left by a riot, the seats still smeared with blood. the town's governor's been suspended and the board governing egyptian soccer has been sacked. the usually camera shy field marshal tantawi who governs egypt turned out to greet a clearly bewildered cairo side. he's ordered an investigation and claimed the transition to civilian rule is still on track. but in egypt's newly elected parliament, m.p.s have lined up to accuse the military of plotting against that transition by permitting last night's violence. whatever the truth, egypt is once again in turmoil. its revolution is barely a year old. last night's violence proof, say protestors, that the army must go. with large demonstrations now planned for tomorrow. >> brown: a short time ago, ray suarez talked with "wall street journal" correspondent matt bradley in cairo. >> suarez: matt bradley, welcome. as last night's violence in port sayyid trailed into the egyptian capital, what's happening tonight on the streets of cairo? >> well, we're seeing a pattern emerge, this is the third time we've seen a lot of violence in the past couple of months directed at the police. so we're seeing a return to the street by mostly angry youth who are very upset with the police and somewhat disconnect from the political forces that have been dominating the protests so far in the past year. it's a little different now though because we have a parliament that's undergirding demands for justice and for discipline to be taken upon the security forces, the minister of the interior and the prime minister. >> suarez: what's the connection between the violence on the soccer field that started last night and what you're seeing now on the streets of egyptian cities? >> well, essentially the anger that is overflowing on to the streets of cairo come from the fact that the ultras-- which are what you call football hooligans in britain or soccer hooligans in the united states-- these ultras feel that the military regime and the police didn't do enough to protect them when the... when other fans, opposing fans in the northern city of port sayyid attacked the opposing bleachers. of course, we know that 74 people died at least. and so the fallout and the anger really has to do with the negligence of the security forces and what they didn't do rather than what they did do. >> suarez: well, the world has long been familiar, sadly, with violence at soccer stadiums, from latin america to africa to western europe. is this somehow different? does this come with political overtones that perhaps those other incidents don't have? >> well, this is different only... really in the sense that the... egypt is going through a very tumultuous political situation right now. so it's not so different from just a regular outpouring of violent rage at a soccer game. really that's what it was. that's what we saw on the videos of fans rushing the field. it's no different in that sense. but the translation of the deaths and the way this nation is dealing with this event, that's a dramatically different affair and will be every time there's violence in the streets of egypt because it's always going to be connected with the animosity that's displayed by the egyptian public toward the security forces. >> suarez: if we go back to last year, were those die-hard fandz you call the ultras involved in the uprising against hosni mubarak? >> yes, they were. they were on the front lines of that uprising. but, of course, there were quite a lot of people who were part of that uprising. and so now we're seeing things a little differently in the past few months. ever since last summer if you remember there was a lot of violence in front of the israeli embassy and a lot of people were killed and eventually the israeli ambassador was forced to evacuate the count are. the ultras really started their sort of front-line activism right there. that was when they took such a very prominent role and they recuringly did that throughout the rest of the summer and into the fall and into the winter as we're seeing now. the clashes in tahrir square right before the parliamentary elections, they were on the front lines then. in the middle of the parliamentary elections in december they played a very prominent role all this has to do with this ongoing vendetta between football hooligans and the police. >> suarez: what possible interests could the police or the army-- which still runs the government-- have in allowing something like this to happen. isn't it all down side for them if you stoke popular anger by your lack of control, both of the society and of a soccer game? >> it doesn't look good for the military, it doesn't look good for the ministry of interior as parliamentarians are calling for the minister of interior to resign. but at the same time, a lot of the protesters, a lot of actors are saying this was a deliberate effort by the military regime or by the ministry of the interior to cause violence. the reason they're saying that is because recently field marshall hussein tan tow we, he partially lifted the emergency law. and he's been in front of parliament saying the emergency law, which allows the police broad powers to investigate and detain criminals without charge that this should be put back now a lot of activists are saying this violence was staged in part to bolster arguments by the government and by members of the former regime? this draconian law enforcement measure needs to be put back into place. at the same time, others are saying the police simply didn't intervene because they wanted to teach these ultras, these football hooligans a lesson. these ultras have been, as i mentioned earlier, very active on the front lines of anti-military and anti-police protesters throughout the past couple of months so it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that the police might want to step aside and show the ultras what they would be up to, what would happen to them without police protection. but really one of the lines that the police have used in the defense of themselves is that every time they step into a violent fray like this they end up busting heads and they end up taking the blame for the deaths of protesters. so at the end of the day it's not really in the police's interest to involve themselves in a very violent skirmish between incensed angry fans because they're going to end up taking the blame, of course. they're going to end up taking the blame anyway. >> suarez: well now there's blowback on the egyptian establishment. have any top officials had to pay with their jobs for what happened last night in port sayyid? >> the governor of port sayyid has resigned. some of his top security staff have resigned. the entire board of the egyptian football association, they have had to resign or they were sacked, it's not entirely clear. and it looks like this sort of pattern of recrip nation is going to continue. there's going to be hell to pay for this one. 74 people died for a seemingly non-political, useless act and so the egyptian public is going to really want to see those responsible hung out to dry and they're not going to take no for an answer. and so the couple people in port sayyid who have already been pushed out of their positions, they're probably the most of several more. >> suarez: matt bradley, thanks. >> thank you. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour: the susan g. komen foundation versus planned parenthood; poverty in america; at-risk youth in juvenile detention; and the timetable for ending the afghan war. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> reporter: republican presidential frontrunner mitt romney picked up a surprise endorsement today. real estate mogul donald trump backed romney after initial reports said he would endorse newt gingrich. the announcement came at trump's hotel in las vegas, nevada. >> mitt is tough, he's smart, he's sharp. he's not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love. so, governor romney, go out and get 'em. you can do it. ( applause ) >> reporter: trump had flirted with a presidential bid of his own last spring, and, at one point, polls showed him at the top of the republican field. the federal reserve chairman got sharp questions today over the fed's decision to keep interest rates at record lows for three more years. ben bernanke was challenged by mostly republicans at a house budget committee hearing. committee chairman paul ryan said the fed's policy is adding to market uncertainty. >> the fed announced that it's going to continue to hold interest rates at extremely low levels through 2014. i think this policy runs the great risk of fueling asset bubbles, destabilizing prices and eventually eroding the value of the dollar. the prospect of all three is adding to uncertainty and holding our economy back, in many of our judgments. >> reporter: bernanke said the central bank is trying to boost the economy and bring down unemployment while inflation is at bay and in his opening statement he warned lawmakers not to cut federal spending so much that it hurts the economy. >> even as fiscal policymakers address the urgent issue of fiscal sustainability, they should take care not to unnecessarily impede the current economic recovery. fortunately, the two goals of achieving long-term fiscal sustainability and avoiding additional fiscal headwinds for the current recovery are fully compatible. indeed, they are mutually reinforcing. >> reporter: in other economic news, first-time claims for jobless benefits dropped last week. tomorrow, the government releases the unemployment numbers for january. and on wall street, stocks marked time, waiting for that jobs report. the dow jones industrial average lost 11 points to close at 12,705. the nasdaq rose 11 points to close at 2,859. two of the most-wanted terror suspects in southeast asia reportedly were killed today in the philippines. the country's military said they died in an air strike on a southern island. those killed included zulkifli bin hir, also known as "marwan." he's a top leader of the jemaah islamiyah terror network. authorities also confirmed the death of umbra jumdail, leader of the abu sayyaf militant group. the u.s. had offered a $5 million reward on marwan. legendary boxing trainer angelo dundee has died. he passed away last night at his home in tampa, florida. dundee trained muhammad ali for most of ali's career, including the classic "thrilla in manila" bout against joe frazier in 1975. dundee had recently attended ali's 70th birthday party. in all, dundee spent more than 60 years in boxing and also trained boxing greats george foreman and sugar ray leonard. angelo dundee was 90 years old. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: and to the fallout over a decision made by one of the country's best known breast cancer charities. on tuesday, the susan g. komen foundation announced it would stop providing grant money to planned parenthood clinics for breast screening. the foundation said it would no longer give money to any group under congressional investigation. planned parenthood is the subject of a house probe. the move sparked a political firestorm, and at least two officials from within komen organization have resigned. for more on all this, we turn to shari roan, who's covering it for the los angeles "times." shari roan, tell us, what was the susan g. komen foundation's initial explanation for cutting off funding for planned parenthood after this year? >> well, the komen foundation late last year informed organizations that received grants that they had changed their rules so that organizations under any type of investigation, whether that was a federal or law enforcement investigation, would be prohibited from receiving any further grants. so this was really the first indication that any organization under investigation would stop receiving komen grants. of course, planned parenthood is under investigation by representative cliff sterns. >> warner: and why is he investigating them? >> >> planned parenthood affiliates are not... do receive federal funding, but they're not allowed to receive funding to be spent on abortion-related services. so representative sterns has said he intends to look into planned parenthood's activities to make sure that their federal funds are spent appropriately on non-abortion related health services. >> warner: now today i know... you, i believe, were also on a press conference call that the susan komen foundation had in which they said there were other reasons that they made this decision. they talk about services not being offered by planned parenthood clinics. can you expand on that? >> yes, the komen officials today seemed to suggest that planned parenthood affiliates may not be the best place to fund and what they explained to members of the media is that planned parenthood provides breast health services. however women who need mammograms, biopsies, even breast cancer treatment are referred out to other medical facilities for that care. this is referred to as "pass-through care." meaning these women come into planned parenthood, they are screened, they receive breast health education but if they need further services they are passed on to another facility. komen officials said that they would like to get away from funding these kinds of pass-through grants. so that might mean that planned parenthood isn't the best fit anymore for komen's grants. >> warner: meanwhile, shari roan what planned parenthood is saying and other analysts looking at this are saying what may be behind this is an ideological political motive on the part of the susan komen foundation. what is known about that allegation? >> well, planned parenthood officials say that the komen foundation has been under pressure for several years for its affiliation with planned parenthood. the komen officials say it is not related to any political pressure. but pro-life groups also say that they have been actively lobbying komen foundation officials to end their partnership with planned parenthood and that this has been going on for a number of years. so i think there's widespread suspicion that komen officials may be feeling pressure to stop affiliating with organizations that provide abortion. >> warner: shari roan, is this seen, then, as part of a larger effort that's been under way across the country to put the squeeze, in effect, on planned parenthood? >> well, one person i interviewed on tuesday from pro-life organizations said that very openly that planned parenthood is... their central focus these days. planned parenthood is well known for being a nationwide provider of abortion services as well as other women's health care and pro-life forces see that as a very recognizable name to try to address their activities. and certainly this has gone on for many years. we often see protesters out in front of planned parenthood clinics. so that's nothing new. but the pressure on individual organizations such as the cohen foundation that may have partnerships with planned parenthood, this is something that i think is a bit of a surprise to a lot of people. the. >> woodruff: just quickly, how much money are we talked about planned parenthood losing? we know there are reports today that planned parenthood's donations have risen in the wake of this. do we know how much money we're talking about here? >> that's really not clear. apparently grants will stop to 16 of 19 planned parenthood affiliates. those grants can range from $50 to more than $100,000. so we are talking about certainly several hundred thousand dollars. i have heard that an emergency fpbd that planned parenthood began has already picked up a lot of donations to try to cover any losses from the komen funds. >> woodruff: i know one report today was new york city mayor michael bloomberg said he would contribute $250,000 to planned parenthood to be matched by other organizations. finely shari roan, in a broad sense, again, what does this represent, this battle, now, out in the open between these two significant organizations, both of which support women's health? >> right. i think this is what's astonishing to most people is that these two iconic women's health organizations are now... now appear to be on opposite sides of the fence and many people who support one organization have often supported the other. certainly on a local level planned parenthood affiliates work very closely with their local komen affiliates. they support each other's fund-raisers and events. and this is causing a lot of people to be very uncomfortable and to really feel like they have to choose sides. so it's a really unfortunate development and i think it's going to linger on for some time as people try to decide where to put their support in the future. >> pelley: shari roan with the los angeles angels of anaheim. thank you very much. >> you're welcome, judy, thanks. >> brown: now: wealth, poverty and politics today. for several weeks, much of the republican presidential campaign seemed to focus on the subject of wealth, specifically that of mitt romney and the taxes he did or didn't pay. >> and will there be discussion? sure. will it be an article? yeah. but is it entirely legal and fair? absolutely. i'm proud of the fact that i pay a lot of taxes. >> brown: the wealth focus came amid a national conversation prompted in part by the "occupy" protest movement, which put a spotlight on economic inequality. president obama took up the theme in his state of the union address last week. >> we can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. ( applause ) >> brown: now, the dialogue may be shifting from wealth to poverty. romney drew fire yesterday after he said this on c.n.n., explaining his focus on the middle class. >> i'm not concerned about the very poor. we have a safety net there. if it needs repair, i'll fix it. i'm not concerned about the very rich. they're doing just fine. i'm concerned about the very heart of america, the 90-95% of americans who right now are struggling. >> brown: in las vegas today, romney's republican rival newt gingrich accused him of dismissing the poor. >> i really believe that we should care about the very poor, unlike governor romney. but i believe we should care differently than barack obama. both governor romney and barack obama seem to believe that a "safety net" is all the poor need. i don't believe that. what the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up and quit being poor. ( cheers and applause ) >> brown: the president worked the issue into remarks at the annual national prayer breakfast in washington. >> it's also about the biblical call to care for the least of these, for the poor, for those at the margins of our society; to answer the responsibility we're given in proverbs to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. >> brown: the issue may resonate this election year more than most, as poverty numbers rise and millions of americans remain unemployed. and we explore some of these issues now with: angela glover blackwell, founder and c.e.o. of the advocacy group "policylink"; lawrence mead, professor of politics and public policy at new york university; and barbara perry, a senior fellow in the presidential oral history program at the university of virginia's miller center. angela glover blackwell, start with you. a general question first: how serious a problem is poverty in america today? >> poverty is a huge problem. it's a problem for the people who are in it and it's a problem for the nation. 15% of americans live below the poverty level. highest number since 1993. and 44% of those live below halve of the poverty level. that means for a woman with two children, that's less than $9,000 a year. on top of that, we have millions and millions of americans-- 127 million-- who in three months of no job would live in poverty. poverty is a huge issue, it's getting worse and it should be very troubling to all of the american people, not just those who are living in poverty. >> brown: lawrence meade, you were an opponent of the real fair reform in the '90s. you don't hear much about poverty in our politics today. how would you frame the problem? >> well, poverty is a different problem for from those that have gotten most of the attention. it's not primarily due to unemployment or inequality. those are concerns that affect the bulk of the population and they affect some poor people. poverty has grown largely due to economic conditions. but it doesn't follow that most of poverty is due to the economy. that's really not true. most poor adults are outside the economy. they're simply detached and they don't say the fact that they're not working is due to the fact they can't find a job. that's seldom the case. it's usually other factors in their private lives that make it difficult for them to work. now i don't give up. >> i think we should take steps to make sure they, in fact, go to work and that's what we did in welfare reform. i think we should also do it for non-working men of low income. most of them are not employed either and we need to do something about that. and certainly economy makes it harder to do but it's possible. jobs are available, it's just being able to get people to get up and work regularly. >> brown: there was that remark from mr. romney yesterday. as someone who studies presidential history here, what strikes you about this moment as we think about poverty and politics? >> i think it's a moment that in many ways repeats a cycle in our country's his they goes back to our very founding and that is that the founding fathers were aware of economic inequalities even at that time and it has followed through and has often been kicked off these various cycles by traumatic upheaval and certainly 2008 was a traumatic upevil in our economy. and so i think the disparities that p.m.c.-- and i think the hearts are in the right place of lawrence and angela, they may see different political issues related to it, but i think that it's certainly bubbled up into the conversation of our politics because of the upheaval of 2008 for sure. >> brown: angela glover blackwell, you started by giving very large numbers of people. do most americans... when a mitt romney or a politician talks about the great middle-- because that's what we hear most often-- do most americans feel themselves to be in the middle and not in poverty? >> most americans like to think of themselves as being in the middle. many americans understand that they're in a very vulnerable place right now. the notion that people in poverty really have a safety net is just wrong and it's... smacks of a "let them eat cake" posture not really understanding the depth of the problem, not understanding how to get out of it but not understanding the impact on society. the people who are being left behind now-- like people in rural communities, latinos, african americans-- will make up the future population. almost half of all children now are children of color. they will be half by the end of this decade. with high levels of poverty, 39% of all black children are poor. with high levels of poverty the future is not right for america if we don't deal with poverty and the people who are being left behind. the american people think of themselves as being middle-class but they know they're vulnerable and they don't want to fall into a needy position and have the leaders not understand that the safety net is not broad enough, not thoughtful enough about how to get people get out of poverty. >> brown: what do you think of the great middle, of if safety net, how american voters see themselves and how our politicians talk about these things. >> most americans don't think they're poor and they don't think they're at risk of poverty but they are concerned about the poor. we do have a safety net. there are about 46 million people on food stamps currently. that's a huge number. we're doing a lot to help people who are low income. that isn't where we're failing. it has to do more with making sure employment levels rise. we have to make sure poor adults are involved in the economy. we did that substantially for welfare mothers in the '90s, we need to do it again today, particularly for low-working men. that's the main thing we need to add to the safety net that we have. >> brown: barbara perry, what do we know about what resonates with voters as we watch politicians talking about these issues. a lot of resentfulness towards the wealthy or still aspirational about getting out of the poverty and out of middle-class. >> you've hit the nail squarely on the head. that is indeed that people want aspirations and that has been the beauty of our system and our capitalistic system in this country for all of its history and that is the great american history that each generation thought it could do better than the last. in the university of virginia where i did a ph.d. where my parents because they came up in the gate debregs could not get beyond high school and their parents in turn who were very working class couldn't get beyond sixth or seventh grade education. i think that what we see now and what will resonate with people is that politicians talk to them about the fear of losing those aspirations of the great american dream and the possibility that is turning into the great american nightmare. >> brown: angela glover blackwell, do you think the subject is getting enough attention? what encourages or discourages you about what you're hearing now? >> i am so encouraged that we are talking about inequality in america. i'm pleased that we're now talking about poverty. we need to stay on this topic. because? mobility that we have been so proud of is in jeopardy. 47% of daughters who are poor will remain there. 35% of sons. 45% of african american children born into the middle-class will end up poor. 16% of white children. we need to restore this notion that you can move up, that children can do better than their parents. we need to stay on topic. this is a serious problem. we need to come to some conclusions about how to move forward. >> brown: are you hopeful about hearing those conclusions among... from the... >> i am hopeful. i'm hopeful because the conversation has opened up. when the president did the state of the union and he emphasized early education, k-12, strong community colleges, infrastructure investments, those were the right things to talk about. we need to make sure that everything we do, including infrastructure investments, really can benefit those who are poor. they can get the jobs. their communities can be improved. i am hopeful because the conversation we need to have is finally on the table. >> brown: lawrence meade, are you hopeful about what we may hear on this and is the subject getting as much attention as it deserves? >> i think it needs even more attention. i agree that improving opportunities actually is crucial. we need to make sure that people who are less well off now will be able to improve their lot. i see that as a joint enterprise. government has to do things to help people, but people also have to help themselves. and that is what we should focus on. we need to have a situation where there's a safety net but also people go to work and they stay working and they do other steps to advance themselves. the ability to do that is still there in america and we need to make sure that that's the case in the future. >> brown: barbara perry, i think back to some periods in our history where poverty was an intensely felt part of the political conversation. it seemed to fall off the map for a while there. what do you think about now and going forward? >> well, i think it would be great if... as we say, we carry on this conversation and we continue to talk about some of these disparities and we have people from all sides of the spectrum, experts in the field giving us different possibilities of how to address it. but i think that i... i maintain that positive outlook that we can do this but i do believe that the situation since 2008 has caused people to feel personally that they're in a downward spiral and we don't want a situation where we have the different political parties just coming at each other and feeling... making people feel like the parties are spiraling downward as well on this particular topic and not offering constructive possibilities. >> brown: we'll leave it there. barbara perry, lawrence meade, angela glover blackwell, thank you all three very much. >> woodruff: next, another in our series on the nation's high school drop-out crisis. last night, we profiled victor rios, a former gang member turned college professor who now mentors at risk youth. tonight, a story about those not so fortunate. rios' colleague, richard ross, spent the past five years interviewing and photographing young people caught up in the juvenile justice system. here, in his own words and images, is what he learned, as part of our "american graduate" project. >> i'm richard ross. i'm a professor at the university of california santa barbara, and i've been working on a project with kids in detention, confinement and treatment for the last five years. photographing, interviewing and just participating in lives of kids that are under stress and in some of the most difficult situations on the planet. i've visited 30 states, including alaska, hawaii and district of columbia. i've been to over 300 sites. i've interviewed over 1,000 kids and administrators. every kid that i spoke to i would go into these cells, i would go into their environment, and i would sit on the floor-- frequently, a concrete cell. i would spend, like, half an hour sitting there taking notes, and i would always start with introducing what i was doing and asking them if it was okay if i talked to them. i called up my cousin, who was a prosecuting attorney in el paso, texas, and asked if i could have access there. and when i asked him do you think there is a possibility that you'll ever be so successful that you'll be out of a job, and his response was, "i'll still have a job as long as texas keeps on making ten- year-olds," and that stopped me. that really staggered me, the idea that ten years and the justice system would be interacting. and when i did a little more investigation, i found that ten- years-old was not really the youngest kids that were involved in the systems. the age range that i spoke to kids was probably 7 to 24. treatment of kids varies from institution to institution. there is no federal statute about how to treat kids. there is really no guidance, so it's all over the place. most states have statutes that they have to have at least 6.5 hours of education per day. many of these kids are dropouts. many of these kids have ditched school, cut school, but beyond the normal behavior. they go to school within these institutions. sometimes the school is a separate unit, sometimes the teacher is brought to them within the day room. usually, they are state- certified. many of the population have special-ed needs. it's not always met. so the teachers go to the school. they are in a literally captive audience for 6.5 hours, and they can't ditch school. some of these kids, it's the best educational experience possible for them. but a lot of these kids, the problem is the culture of expectation. the word "expectation" is really key to who they are. their families have limited expectations of who they can be, and they themselves have limited expectations. when you get a teacher that's dedicated to these kids, all of the sudden, they say, "i expect something of you. ladies and gentlemen, i want you to be able to do something." and they want to show that they are not stupid. and when you show that there is a measure of their intelligence by a g.e.d. or a high school diploma or beyond, they can amaze you. it's not often. i would say it's not frequent, but it exists. it's a very, very difficult population. and whereas, if you say, "i want to take these kids and i want to have retribution, i want to have accountability for what they did," its understandable. if you are a parent and your child is damaged, if you are somebody that has suffered from pain from a juvenile, it's hard not to want biblical revenge. but in these situations, you see these kids and you understand and you listen to them and you hear the factors that come to play on them so much, you can't help but being somewhat sympathetic. i went down to an institution in l.a., which was 84 girls, females. i asked the director a very naive question. i said, "how many... what percentage of the girls have been abused?" and he seemed startled by the question, and he said, "what percentage? all of them." 100% had been abused and, to me, that was striking. so when kids do things society considers wrong, how much do you hold them accountable? you can't give them a total pass, but when you stop their education, you're stopping any chance of a better future. >> brown: "american graduate" is a public media initiative funded by the corporation for public broadcasting. you can join a live chat online tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. eastern with richard ross and victor rios, the college professor and one-time gang member. find the details on our home page. >> woodruff: finally tonight, fixing a date for the u.s. and its allies to end combat operations in afghanistan. that question is front and center again after defense secretary leon panetta talked to reporters yesterday en route to a meeting with his nato counterparts. from the white house to the nato summit, the question today was: will the u.s. will end its combat role in afghanistan early? u.s. defense secretary leon panetta seemed to suggest exactly that yesterday when he said: that would be one year earlier than expected. but this afternoon, white house spokesman jay carney tried to clarify. >> what secretary panetta said is that it could happen, that the transition to afghan security lead could be moved up to 2013. but he was not making an announcement about a decision that had been made. >> woodruff: in fact, nato has been working to transition to full afghan security, province by province, by the end of 2014. it was widely assumed that coalition troops would lead military operations until then. but even before panetta's statement, french president nicolas sarkozy signaled an accelerated transition. he hosted afghan president hamid karzai in paris last week. >> ( translated ): for france, the continuation of this transition and the gradual hand- over of the combat responsibilities will allow us to plan the return of all the french forces by the end of 2013. >> woodruff: in brussels today, nato defense chiefs were at pains to show unity on an afghan timetable. british defense secretary philip hammond: >> we are actually all in the same place. we all recognized that in 2013 there will be an evolution of the mission. >> woodruff: and nato secretary general anders fogh rasmussen played down any suggestion of a "rush to the exits." >> we expect the last provinces to be handed over to the afghan security forces by mid-2013. and from that time, the role of our troops will gradually change from combat to support. in that, there is nothing new. >> woodruff: but there was consternation in kabul. a senior afghan security official warned that panetta's statement "throws out the whole transition plan." back in the u.s., republicans in congress and on the campaign trail were equally bothered. presidential hopeful mitt romney spoke in las vegas yesterday. >> so the taliban hears it, the pakistanis hear it, the afghan leaders hear it. why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the date you're pulling out your troops? it makes absolutely no sense. >> woodruff: even so, c.i.a. director david petraeus, who once commanded nato forces in afghanistan, counseled calm at a congressional hearing today. >> the conversation that secretary panetta had with some press on his plane was more than a bit overanalyzed, shall we say. >> woodruff: all of this comes at a sensitive time in a war that has seen almost 1,900 american troops killed. president obama pointed to progress in his state of the union address last month. >> from this position of strength, we've begun to wind down the war in afghanistan. >> woodruff: but a recently leaked national intelligence estimate spoke of a "stalemate" on the ground, and it warned afghan forces might not be able to keep control once u.s. forces depart. >> woodruff: we get two views. jack kean was chief of staff when the u.s. invaded afghanistan in 2001. he now has his own consulting firm. celeste ward gventer was deputy secretary of defense in 2006 and 2007. she's now at the university of texas in austin. we thank you both for being with us. general kean you just came back from a trip to afghanistan. what do you think it would mean if the u.s. and nato were to accelerate this handover of security from nato to afghan forces? >> well, we're not ready to do that, frankly. what has happened in the south and southwest-- which is kandahar province and helmand province-- we have made significant gains and we're solidifying those gains. in my judgment the taliban has been handed a stun deg feet. secondly, in the east the momentum has shifted to our favor and that's with we need to apply these additional resources that we currently have and we need all of the 2013 fighting season to continue that momentum but most importantly to solidify those gains. while it's possible we could finish that task early i think it's highly unlikely. >> warner: celeste ward gventer, how do you see... what would it mean if the transition were to happen a year earler. >> >> judy, thank you so much for having me on. i have a great respect for general kean and his service to our nation but i respectfully disagree with him on this. i think we need to step back and ask the question fighting season to fight for what and who are we fighting and to what end? and i think the administration has still not satisfactorily answered that question. it's not clear who our enemy is or what another fighting season or two more fighting seasons or ten more fighting seasons is really going to achieve at the expense of american lives and treasure. >> woodruff: what about that? what does another fighting season or more as she just put it accomplish? >> well, i mean we're still asking the basic question, why are we in afghanistan? i thought that question had been answered for the american people after the 9/11 attack we were attempting to stabilize the country so the taliban didn't return the power and we don't have to deal with the sanctuary again which we would most likely have v to deal with. so that is what we are preventing from occurring and just as the surge made significant difference in iraq through two fighting season, 2007, 2008 we brought the level of violence down 90% but was within iraqi security forces capability of handling. while these countries are very different, the principles are absolutely the same. we're trying to bring the level of violence down with the taliban to put it within the means of the afghan national security forces to handle. we have done that in two major areas and we need one other area to do that in. >> warner: why isn't that.... >> woodruff: why isn't that a sufficient explanation celeste ward gventer? >> well, we need to consider 9/11 was over ten years ago. the principal architect in the organization responsible for the attack on the united states is gone. and what's happening in afghanistan now has far less to do with 9/11 than it has to do with rivalries being played out on the stage of afghanistan which has happened many times in the history of afghanistan and the united states is right in the middle of it. and we need to start looking at what our fundamental strategic interests are. if it's to prevent a sanctuary for terrorism, there's other ways to do that other than occupying afghanistan in perpetuity. there's no evidence that even if the taliban were to come back into power that there would be nothing we could do to prevent it from becoming a sanctuary again and the argument we have been the american public is growing a bit steal if you look at polls and the way the american public is viewing this war now. >> woodruff: how do you respond to that? you've been talking to the military leaders over there. why do they believe staying a bit longer is going to make a difference. >> because it does. killing and defeating taliban and driving them out of the country is a military objective that you can define that objective and you can define the results. and for the life of me after we came to afghanistan in 2001, we changed that regime in addition to the northern alliance tribes. i don't know how you walk away from the $30 million people and just turn them back into the taliban and seventh century talibanism with the a natal brutal regime that they were. it seems to me that america in terms of its cater the and values does have some obligation to those people after we made that regime change. >> woodruff: but under that argument you would argue for saying indefinitely then? >> i'm saying what i'm arguing for is staying to a point where the afghan security forces can begin to feel with this situation on their own and that's all we've been interested. we're not an occupation force and the only reason this thing is ten-years long is because we have an administration that prioritized iraq over afghanistan beginning in 2002 and this place was on a diet in terms of resources until 2010. >> woodruff: celeste ward gventer if you could respond to that. also this national intelligence estimate we mentioned in the report a minute ago, it's leaked to a news organization. essentially painting a more pessimistic picture than what the administration had been saying. >> well, judy, the n.i.e. is discouraging but not terribly surprising. i think we need to keep in mind that this is their country and we are primarily fighting afghans whose country we are in. and we may have a moral obligation to people around the world to prevent atrocities and prevent terrible thingsrom f happening to them but affect the fundamental driver of american strategy in this world we'll be awfully busy because there will be other places where terrible things happen. we have a moral obligation to the people of the united states, their tax dollars and i know general kean would agree with me that we have a moral obligation to our all-volunteer force and the tens of thousands of military families who've been experiencing non-stop deployments for over a decade now. and so strategy is all about balancing priorities and about figuring out what's important to you and managing risk and there are no great solutions here but what we're doing doesn't seem to be resulting doesn't seem to be terribly good for the united states. >> woodruff: how do you respond? >> well, i certainly agree with the purpose and the strategy of stabilizing in afghanistan. i think it will contribute to regional stability to a certain degree. i would agree celeste that overall we have not had a very good regional strategy and i'd still persist to this day but for the life of me i don't see a destabilized afghanistan with the taliban in control as being anything but horrific for the region in terms of the rise of radical islam. what it would portend for pakistan in terms of their future destabilization with a growing nuclear arsenal and an already raging insurgency inside that country. it would just too old that problem. so i think we've got to look at it in terms of what is the impact on pakistan and certainly what are our obligations to protect our own freedom this place where we know for a fact that the taliban and the al qaeda are collaborating today as we speak and would reunify their efforts. >> woodruff: and do you believe the administration is going to accelerate this departure timetable celeste ward gventer? >> i think they well might and i would advise them do that because the reality is it's not free to continue the course that we're on. we have to choose between not a perfect course and the other course that we're on or some other desirable course. we have to take what we're doing into account and other al tern tifts and what we're doing has stopped making sense a long time ago. >> woodruff: celeste ward gventer, general jack kean, we thank you both. >> good seeing you. >> thank you so much. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: egypt erupted in new violence with police battling protesters in tahrir square after riots at a soccer match killed more than 70 people yesterday; and donald trump endorsed mitt romney for the republican presidential nomination. online, we have the story of a largely forgotten heroine of the civil rights movement. kwame holman explains. kwame? >> reporter: on the rundown, hari sreenivasan talks with filmmaker sharon la cruise. her documentary, "daisy bates: first lady of little rock," airs tonight on "independent lens" on many pbs stations. a follow-up to "nova's" story on an ice age fossil find. some scientists think a unique earthquake phenomenon may have killed scores of mammoths. on this science friday, we look at modern instances of liquefaction on our science page. and on art beat, jeff looks at the life and work of nobel prize-winning poet wislawa szymborska, who died yesterday. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. jeff? >> brown: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among others. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org