training. however, i will say that secretary of state kerry, in doing these interviews today with broadcast networks did say in no uncertain terms that this would be no american boots on the ground. so we know it s going to be some additional assistance. also, the president is going to announce what he would like to see happen to be approved by congress, this anti-terrorism fund, a partnership involving a number of nations that would train other countries to fight radical to fight terrorist elements within those countries. the problem is cnn s barbara starr brought up a good point on that. even if this does go through and it would be about $5 billion ideally, would it really work? in some of the countries where an effort like that would be most useful or most needed, those are the places where the governments are the most changeable or undefined, most difficult to work with, enacting something like that.
jim acosta, thank you very much. the troop drawdown may have a ripple down effect in the region. right next door, as all of us know, is pakistan. with fewer troops in afghanistan, will that limit u.s. options in dealing with terror in pakistan? wolf, this may be a key question for what does happen two years from now when u.s. troops pack up and go home. what happens if the u.s. spots an al qaeda terrorist training camp right on that afghanistan/pakistan border in what if pakistan s nuclear weapons are not secure? how does the u.s. operate against terrorist elements inside of pakistan? no one is really talking about that right now. that seems to be a black hole of discussion but behind the scenes, u.s. officials say they are going to look at all of this and figure out, do they need additional basis in the region? do they need places to base troops if there is a crisis? a place to possibly be able to
not enough military assets ready to deploy if they needed to rescue people. so you have this dangerous place, they knew it was dangerous, they didn t provide security and didn t have a plan to extract people, and people need to be held accountable. this could have been prevented if they listened to ambassador stevens, is that fair? it could have been prevented if they provided more security or potentially closed down this facility. and what about as we learned, fox news s james rosen s comment on this, that as relates to benghazi, the president s military people, the day of the attack while the attack was going on were informed this was a terrorist attack. that is what they were told and that is what they believed as they were going to see the president. so isn t it logical we can conclude the president knew while the attack was going on it was a terror attack? i think it is clear even after they knew it was linked to terrorist elements, and people linked to terrorists, they st
sense she feels the iranians know there s a moment here. it s not just an emotional thing. it s not just about sanctions. they feel for the first time that their interests in the region overlap with america s interest. they feel threatened by what they see as an encirclement, by terrorist elements, who happen to be enemies of the u.s. they see a strategic interest in trying to align with the u.s. now. they don t want whether or not they want the u.s. to be their best friends, they certainly don t want the u.s. to be their enemies. so there s a strategic reason for iran to follow through on this deal, not simply an emotional or political one. jane, i want to go to the russia issue a minute, and what is the united states to do russia, it s almost as if they try to find ways to test the resolve of the united states in this relationship. oh. what would what would your advice be to the president if russia goes ahead and goes through with the side deal with the iranians? well
circumstances, but we have been in south korea for a significant period of time. not a civil war going on. that s the point, that s why i got to the point about saying that the government there ultimately, and that s going to be the case in afghanistan as well, has to be able to provide internal security on their own. if you don t have a functional government that can provide the basics of government, no residual force is going to ultimately guarantee the result we want. it s just not possible. ultimately, iraq belongs to iraq. even afghanistan belongs to afghans. they ultimately have to be responsible for that. steve? is the war on terror over? of course not. in fact, it s spread in a way that makes it even more dangerous. you now see al qaeda elements in other terrorist elements creating strongholds in africa. syria has become probably close to what afghanistan looked like not so long ago. we have issues in afghanistan, iraq. i worry about the stability of jordan. clearly t