timetable against patreaus initial publications being diplomatic publicly, the president said, no, we re going to take down 33,000 troops over the next year and a half. it s time very suspiciously correlated to the election. really? against general patreaus? i m not saying we have to stay in afghanistan forever or nation build over the next 10 or 20 years, the next increment of progress and hope for our mission there was to build up security forces in volume. we are nation building. when bill clinton was president, conservatives were against nation building. in the last decade. that s not that s not my definition of the mission in afghanistan. my definition in afghanistan is this have enough capacity in afghanistan or nearby so that threats to our security interests can be promptly identified or defeated if the need arises. in the intermediate term, that means and only means building up the afghan security forces so we can draw up as they draw down. to do it properly was going
i haven t called for action earlier. but once the president of the united states said gadhafi must go, the president s own words create the outcome. he created the second vital interest. there s the necessity. but if you have a commander in chief who is now saying we re not going after regime change, doesn t that muddle things up a bit? my view is he should not support our decision-making options. when the president and the united states, the kmapder in chief, the leader of the free world says gadhafi must go, you can t have a dictator sit there and thumb his nose. what about afghanistan afghanistan was there last summer, talked to general patrea patreaus. he said, look, at that time we stalled the momentum of the insur general si. he needed two more years of the get the quality and volume of the afghan security forces to appoint where we could step up to face the drawdown. two more years since last summer. publicly thought he could do it a little sooner. in the meantime, the p
qaeda in afghanistan. it s not just afghanistan, there s kinetic synergy at pakistan and afghanistan. you re another person who comes here saying we need to be in afghanistan because of pakistan. we need toรง be afghanistan because of the security poses in afghanistan. we need troops in afghanistan because we re concerned about pakistan? the most successful, knowledgeable leaders on these issues unquestionably. say not quite yet, a little longer so we can get to the intermediate goal, make it general patreaus. absolutely. what lessons do you take away from ten years in the war in america. what happened again happened to us on 9/11 came from a place like say yemen. would you again do what we did
take more than six to 12 months. they cut it short. the problem is, we don t have thomas jefferson running afghanistan. we have ckarzai and his drug-addict brother. are we not building a foundation on sinking sand? oh the goal is not afghanistan. the goal is not to have a western-style democracy. that s not the goal. near afghanistan to promptly defeat threats as they arise. we re not quite there yet. patreaus asked for more time, the most successful, far more knowledgeable successful leader on these issues and the president cut him short. this is a moment of opportunity for us in the region more broadly. he put out a political timeline instead of what was right for the security interests. you realize general patreaus in everything else that depending on despite the quality of what they do, despite how admirable they are in terms of
in afghanistan which is to send in a large number of troops or would you do it with drone strikes? how would you approach it taking everything you learn in the last decade? what would you do differently? each of the countries in the middle east is different. they have histories, cultures, traditions, relationships with the united states militarily, economically, and the like. you can t put a one-size-fits-all imprint on all of the middle east. it depends on the country and the circumstance. but in general, in the wake of the arab spring, now is not the time for this president or the republican party to shrink from this moment of opportunity for freedom. that doesn t mean we invade every country. look at what reagan did in angola, poland, afghanistan part one. short of invading, there s lots of options to support, to fund, to supply elements that in those countries lots of countries want to move toward democracy and we should help them. do you think afghanistan taught us that sendin