UNITED STATES.
>> RICHARD ENGEL IN AFGHANISTAN
FOR US, THANK YOU.
>>> I WANT TO TURN TO SOMEONE
WHO HAS WORKED CLOSELY ON THE
AFGHANISTAN ISSUE, IN THE LAST
ADMINISTRATION, DID SO WHEN WE
FIRST WENT BACK IN THE FIRST
PART OF THIS CENTURY.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER AMBASSADOR
TO THE UNITED NATIONS AS WELL.
GOOD TO SEE YOU IF YOU COULD
MAKE THIS DECISION, COULD KABUL
BECOME KOREA AND GERMANY FOR
AMERICAN TROOPS?
IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE
AT LEAST ADVOCATED FOR, YES,
PERMANENT STABILITY FORCES WERE
NECESSARY?
WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN WHERE YOU
WOULD HAVE COME DOWN ON THIS IF
YOU COULD HAVE MADE THIS
DECISION UNILATERALLY?
>> WE WOULD HAVE HOPED IN 2001
IT WASNT NECESSARY, BUT THE
ISSUE FOR THE UNITED STATES
TODAY, YESTERDAY, TOMORROW, IS
WHAT PROTECTS AMERICAN CIVILIANS
AND AMERICAN NATIONAL INTERESTS
THE BEST?
THIS IS A HARD DECISION.
THIS HAS BEEN A PROTRACTED
STRUGGLE, BUT LETS BE VERY,
VERY CLEAR.
WE WENT INTO AFGHANISTAN, WE
HAVE STAYED IN AFTERNOON NOT TO
PROTECT AFGHANS, BUT TO PROTECT
AMERICANS.
THIS MILITARY WITHDRAWAL AND THE
WITHDRAWAL OF ALL THE OTHER
AMERICAN AGENCIES THAT ARE
AFFECTED, I THINK IS GRAVE
DANGER TO AMERICAS NATIONAL
SECURITY.
THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN POINT,
BECAUSE IF DONALD TRUMP HAD BEEN
REELECTED, I THINK HE WOULD BE
DOING EXACTLY WHAT JOE BIDEN IS
DOING.
ITS A MISTAKE ACROSS THE BOARD,
AND I VERY MUCH FEAR WERE GOING TO FEEL THE CONSEQUENCES IN THE
TO FEEL THE CONSEQUENCES IN THE
NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE.
>> IT ISNT UNPOPULAR THAT
AMERICAN CROPS ARE IN KOREA OR
GERMANY, BUT PUBLIC OPINION
MATTERS, RIGHT?
AND PUBLIC OPINION HAS TURNED ON
THIS WAR ON ALL SIDES OF THE
SPECTRUM.
THIS ISNT ONE OF OUR BUBBLE
ISSUES.
IS THIS THE FAULT OF POLITICAL
LEADERS NOT ARTICULATING WHAT
THE MISSION IS?
I THINK WHEN IT WAS AS A MISSION
TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY, A LOT OF
PEOPLE SAID, GOOD LUCK, THIS IS
A COUNTRY A COUPLE CENTURIES
BEHIND.
>> I NEVER BELIEVED IT WAS A
MISSION FOR DEMOCRACY.
GOD KNOWS I WISH PEOPLE THERE
WELL.
THIS IS NOT AS A CHARITY.
WERE THERE TO PROTECT AMERICAN
CIVILIANS FROM ANOTHER 9/11.
I DO THINK THAT PUBLIC OPINION
HAS TURNED AGAINST THIS WARP.
I BLAME IN SQUARELY A OUR
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP FOR AT
LEAST THE LAST 12 YEARS, WE HAVE
NOT HAD A PRESIDENT TO
ARTICULATE CLEARLY WHY WE WERE
THERE.
WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO WIN THE
WAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, DISPOSITION OF
TERRORIST FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN
AND MANY OTHER PARTS OF THE
WORLD HASNT ALLOWED THAT TO
HAPPEN.
THE QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU
RATHER PROTECT AGAINST RENEWED
TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED
STATES ON PLACES LIKE
AFGHANISTAN?
OR WOULD YOU RATHER TRY TO DO IT
IN THE STREETS AND SKIES ABOVE
PERK?
IF OUR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE
MISSION, RECOGNIZING IT WAS
PROTRACTED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT.
THATS HOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTOOD THE PROTRACTED NATURE
OF THE AMERICAN DEPLOYMENTS IN
GERMANY AND JAPAN TO WIN THE
COLD WAR, WHICH WE DID, AND IN
FACT OUR TROOPS ARE STILL THERE.
WHEN PEOPLE EXPLAIN THE REASONS
AND THE REASONS ARE GOOD, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SUPPORT OF DISPOSITION OF AMERICAN FORCES
DISPOSITION OF AMERICAN FORCES
TO PROTECT THEM.
>>> SOMETIMES WE TREATED THE
TALIBAN AS AN ENTITY, SOMETIMES
AS AN ENTITY TO BE NEGOTIATED
WITH.
THESE MIXED MESSAGES PERHAPS
SEEM TO, I THINK, THROW OUR
MILITARY LEADERS FOR A LOOP AT TIMES, AND PERHAPS IT WAS BEING
TIMES, AND PERHAPS IT WAS BEING
DONE TO JUST FORESTALL ANY MORE
ATTACKS, WHATEVER RHINE BUT IT
SEEMS HOW WE DEALT WITH THE
TALIBAN CHANGED CONSTANTLY.
>> I THINK WE UNDERSTOOD ON
SEPTEMBER THE 12th THAT WE FACED
AN IDEOLOGICAL FOE OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE WEST AS A WHOLE.
IT HAS REMAINED AN IDEOLOGICAL
FOE, THOUGH WE DONT ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT.
I THINK THERES TOO MANY PEOPLE
IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
WEST GENERALLY, WHO DONT SEE
THIS RELIGIOUS FANATICISM IN
POLITICAL FORM IS JUST AS MUCH
AN IDEOLOGICAL THREATS AS THE
GREAT THREATS WE SAUCE DURING
THE 20th CENTURY.
IT SEEMS VERY MEDIEVAL TO US,
AND I THINK IF WE MAINTAINED A
CONSISTENCY OF UNDERSTANDING
THAT THREAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
EASIER AND MORE LOGICAL TO
EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WHY WE NEEDED TO CONTINUE TO
RESIST IT THROUGH A MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PRESENCE IN
INTELLIGENCE PRESENCE IN
AFGHANISTAN.
>> MILITARY LEADERS ARE TELLING
ME THAT THE MAJOR THREATS TO THE
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES
DONT EMANATE FROM AFGHANISTAN
ANYMORE.
IT DOESNT SAY THEY MAY NOT IN
THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW OUR
THREATS, YOU KNOW, WEVE GOT
MORE ISSUES IN ASIA, MORE ISSUES
IN CYBER, THAN WE DO WITH AL
QAEDA OR ISIS.
THEREFORE, WERE GOING TO HAVE
TO PRIORITIZE OUR RESOURCES INTO
THOSE AREAS.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT
RATIONALE?
>> WELL, I THINK THATS A
SELF-LICKING ICE CREAM CONE.
IF YOU ONLY HAVE SO MANY
RESOURCES, AND MORE THREATS THAN
RESOURCES CAN COPE WITH, YOURE
NOT GOING TO DO VERY WELL.
THE UNITED STATES OBVIOUSLY HAS
TO FACE THE THREAT OF CHINA IN
ASIA AND AROUND THE WORLD.
ITS THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT OF
THE 21st UNIVERSITY, BUT IT
DOESNT MOON OTHEREAN OTHER THRE
DISAPPEARED.
WE HAVE NEW THREATS LIKE CYBER.
WE CAN DEFEND THE UNITED STATES.
WHAT ARE WE GOOD FOR IF WE COULD
DEFEND THE UNITED STATES BY THE
APPLICATION OF ADEQUATE
RESOURCING, AND THEYRE OUT
THERE.
>> ANOTHER ARGUMENT THATS BEEN
MADE IS 20 YEARS AGO WE DIDNT
HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE DRONE
TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE TODAY.
WERE REALLY GOOD AT THIS
COUNTER-TERRORISM STUFF, AND,
YOU KNOW, WE DONT HAVE TO BE IN
COUNTRY IN THE NUMBERS WEVE
BEEN IN IN ORDER TO MANAGE IT.
IS THAT REALISTIC?
>> THAT IS RIDICULOUS.
THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN
EFFECTIVE PRESENCE, NOT JUST TO
DEAL WITH THE TERRORIST THREAT
IN AFGHANISTAN, BUT TO WATCH
WHATS GOING ON TO THE WEST AND
IRAN, TO WORRY ABOUT PAKISTAN,
WHICH IN THE FACE OF A
TALIBAN-CONTROLLED AFGHAN
GOVERNMENT COULD BE MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO BE TAKEN OVER BY
A RADICAL ISLAM SYSTEM, COULD
HAVE THEN A POTENTIAL STOCK UP
NUCLEAR WEAPONS REQUIRES BEING
THERE ON THE GROUND.
DOING IT LONG DISTANCE IS MUCH
LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THE IDEA
WERE NOW GOING TO DO IT FROM
THE PERSIAN GULF REGION OR
CENTRAL ASIA IS A VERY POOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR BEING PRESENT IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS INSIDE
SUFFICIENT NUMBERS INSIDE
AFGHANISTAN.
>> I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A DIVIDE
MORNING THE FOREIGN POLICY -- TO
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ITS WHY ARE
WE THERE?
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY,
SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001, TO RISK
THAT HAPPENING AGAIN, WHICH IS
VERY MUCH WHAT I THINK WERE
DOING, IS NATIONAL SECURITY
MALPRACTICE.
I JUST HOPE TO GOD IM WRONG.