much capable of going on the offensive and beginning to take back the country. but at the same time we had invested over four administrations billions of dollars along with the international community in the afghan security and defense forces. building a modern military. with the most sophisticated equipment. 300,000 forces strong. with an air force the taliban didn t have. and the fact is we ve seen that force has been unable to defend the country. that has happened more quickly than we anticipated. the idea of them the force not being able to defend, i mean, what a lot of experts believe and you can disagree if you want is that having the usair support, having u.s. intelligence there to help the afghan troops on the ground is what stiffens their spine and enables them to do what they do. that is part of the larger issue about whether the u.s. should have left behind any sort of residual force. beyond that is again the
remember, this is not saigon. we went to afghanistan 20 years ago with one mission. and that mission was to deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. we have succeeded in that mission. the objective we set bringing those who attacked us to justice, making sure they couldn t attack us again from afghanistan, we ve succeeded in that mission. in fact we succeeded a while ago. at the same time, remaining in afghanistan for another one, five, ten years is not in the national interest. the british were there for a long time in the 19th century. the russians were there for a long time in the 20th century. we ve been there twice as long as the russians. how that is in our national interest, i don t see. as i mentioned a moment ago i think most of our strategic competitors around the world would like nothing better than for us to remain in afghanistan for another year, five years, ten years and have those resources dedicated to being in the midst of a civil war. it is simply not in our inter
wasn t done that way, and we allowed the taliban to hit the provincial capitals they never cut their ties to al qaeda. i don t know what the secretary is talking about when he says that, you know, we could maybe recognize them as a legitimate government. they have never cut their ties to al qaeda. we are going to go back, jake, to a pre-9/11 state. a breeding ground for terrorism. you know, i hate to say this. i hope we don t have to go back there but it will be a threat to the homeland in a matter of time. your fellow republican congressman adam kinzinger tweeted that, quote, between trump and biden they own this. congresswoman liz cheney another republican called it the, quote, trump/biden calamity saying it began with the trump administration negotiating with terrorists. senator ben sass put out a similar statement. does former president trump share the blame for what we are seeing in afghanistan because of the deal he made with the taliban and the fact secretary blinken wasn t wr
your fellow republican congressman adam kinzinger tweeted that, quote, between trump and biden they own this. congresswoman liz cheney, another republican called it the, quote, trump/biden calamity saying it began with the trump administration negotiating with terrorists. senator ben sass put out a similar statement. does former president trump share the blame for what we are seeing in afghanistan because of the deal he made with the taliban and the fact secretary blinken wasn t wrong when he said the taliban was stronger in january of this year than it had been since 9/11? well, you know, i ve talked to national security adviser o brien about this. it was always going to be conditions based. they are violating two principles of that agreement. one attacking provincial capitals. two, never cutting ties with al qaeda. in his words, when he talked to president trump, he told him that i will not allow to have another saigon on my watch. they even talked about b-52s. we can talk hypo
first. the idea that the status quo could have been plmaintained by keeping our forces there is simply wrong. the fact is had the president decided to keep forces in afghanistan beyond may 1st attacks would have resumed on our forces. the taliban had not been attacking our forces or nato during the period from which the agreement was reached to may 1st. the offensive you are seeing across the country to take the provincial capitals would have commenced. we would have been back at war with the taliban. i would probably be on this program today explaining why we were sending tens of thousands of american forces back into afghanistan and back to war. something the american people simply don t support. that is the reality. that s the context we re dealing with. you cited the may 1st deadline negotiated by the trump administration. you did blow through that deadline. we did have troops there after may 1st. again, the issue here is not just the withdrawal of u.s.