president of ubecki -- becki-stan-stan, i'm going to say i don't know, do you know? >> the least of herman cain's problems now but they are causing trouble. i'll explain. then, new studies confirm what we know. america is slipping behind in education worldwide. we take an in-depth look with the secretary of education and bill gates. first, here's my take. i've been thinking about occupy wall street which is now occupying a number of other cities in america. and wondering what is it really about. the protesters don't like bank bailouts, they feel the 99% have been hard done by it, and they're protesting what they see as inequality. but america has always had more inequality than many countries. i think the underlying sense of frustration is over a very unamerican state of affairs, a loss of social mobility. americans have so far put up with inequality because they felt they could change their status. they didn't mind other being rich as long as they had a path to move up, as well. the american dream is all about social mobility in a sense. the idea that anyone can make it. well, "time" magazine has a great cover story this week that highlights the social mobility in america is declining. she points out that if you were born in 1970 in the bottom 1/5 of our socio-economic spectrum, you have only a 17% chance of making it into the upper 2/3. in other words, moving from the bottom toward the top. the data now show that it is much easier to climb up the ladder in many parts of europe than in the united states. rana points out that while nearly half of american men with fathers in the bottom 1/5 of the earning curve remain that, don't move up. only a quarter of danes and swedes and only 30% of britains do. in other words, the europeans do much better. the american dream seems to be thriving in europe, not at home. what happened and what can we do? well, there are a number of reasons why we find ourselves in this predicament. but the most important of them is how much we have lagged behind in education. no other factor is as closely linked to upward mobility. education is the engine of social mobility. and for all its current troubles, europe, especially northern europe, has done a much better job providing high-quality public education, particularly for those who are not rich or upper middle class. so they can move up. we talk a lot about the genius of steve jobs these days and justifiably because he was a genius. but he also grew up in an environment that helped. for example, he graduated from high school in 1972 at a time when the california public school system was ranked first in the country and american public education was the envy of the world. the public school he went to in cupertino was high quality with programs in science and the liberal arts. his twin passions. today, california's public schools are a disaster, and the state spends twice as much on prisons as it does on education. so how do we fix our education system? i'm not going to give it away right now. watch my "gps" special tonight. it's called "restoring the american dream: fixing education." it airs at 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. eastern tonight. now back to our regular show. let's get started. the issue of the "atlantic" magazine that will hit the newsstands next week has a terrific story that adds significantly to a growing body of evidence on the pakistan problem up problem. cnn has special early access. one of the authors, jeffrey goldburg, joins me now, welcome. >> thank you. >> let's cut to the chase. the most interesting part of the piece is this conversation that you report between the head of the pakistani army and the head of the unit that is basically in charge of nuclear weapons. >> right. what happened afterafter, the ii army is shocked that u.s. raiders can come in, kill someone, kill someone in an army garrison town, leave without the pakistani military even knowing. so after, this the pakistani military gets very, very worried it american access to pakistan's nuclear weapons. and of course, as you know, pakistan treasures its nuclear weapons more than any other aspect of its arsenal certainly. and -- and -- >> it would be fair for them to think, as you point out, that there might be an american plan, a kind of a plan deep in the pentagon that in a worst case scenario if something terrible happened in pakistan, we would find a way of going in and securing the nuclear weapons. >> there -- there are plan, in fact. it's a very, very high priority for american planners. we'd rather have nothose nuclea weapons not fall in the hands of gee haddists, if the taliban gets closer to some of these bases. so what happened was this -- the spd, this pakistani army branch, gets a call from general kyani, chief the army staff, saying are we secure -- not from jihadists but from america. >> and what does the head of this nuclear unit, what does he do in response to kayani's concerns? >> well, this is very interesting. what happens is the nuclear program has already dispersed around the country. there are 12 or 15 sites where you could plausibly believe that there are nuclear weapons stored or components of nuclear weapons are stored. one of the pakistani doctrines to keep those weapons safe and away from prying eyes -- not only america's but india's -- is move them around, move them around the country. sometimes they're moved by helicopter. but often they're moved by road. and -- and what happened after abadabad was the pace this movement increased. in other words, they accelerated the velocity of this shell game, if you will. and here's the troubling -- the really troubling aspect of this. there are two ways you can do this, obviously. you can have huge armored convoys that are -- that are driven at night, well protected, moving weapons and components. but of course that draws attention. not only the attention of jihadists or whatever might be interested, but -- but spy satellites and et cetera so what happens is very often these war heads and material are moved around in the equivalent of delivery vans. over -- >> u.p.s. trucks basically? >> you wish. i mean, u.p.s. would probably do a fairly good job of it. it's an open question of how good a job is being done. now obviously if the intelligence is good, if they have good operational security on the movement of these trucks, put aside the issue of how dangerous pakistani roads are on a daily basis, but put that aside, if they have good operational security then no one knows where these trucks going at any given moment. but because we know that the pakistani military has been infiltrated to some degree by people who are sympathetic to organizations like the taliban, that's a whole other level of worry. >> you mention in the article very specifically that the weapons in these unsecure or insecure convoys, perhaps one truck moving around, were both unmated and mated. this struck me as very, very worrying. explain what the difference is. >> right. well demated weapons are weapon in which the warhead is in one place. the fissile core is in another, the delivery system is another place entirely. so if you were plotting to steal a nuclear weapon, you're going to have a harder time when they're separate. and so we got reports that sometimes these weapons are actually the smaller tactical sized weapons that are -- that are mated permanently. the way they're designed is such that it's not possible to de-mate them. so you could have a complete nuclear weapon being driven around the streets of -- of pindi or la hor or karachi, where the naval base was that was attacked not long ago. and that's a whole -- another level of worry. and i know that people in the united states government are obviously very worried about that level of security. >> you also point out, and this is somewhat public knowledge, that you flush out some of the details. there have been attacks on six different bases in pakistan that are considered to be -- or rumored to have nuclear weapons on them, correct? >> there have been several attacks over the past five or six or seven years. the -- the attack that to me is the most interesting was the attack that came a few weeks after the abadabad raid. an attack on a naval air base outside karachi which some people believe might be a place that you would have nuclear weapons ready for delivery in case of a war between pakistan and india. they managed -- it's not only the fact that these guys penetrated the base, it's that they stayed on the base for i think 16 or 18 hours before they were neutralized. and they had a specific target. they were going for the p3 o'ryan spy planes, they blew up two of them. they had a very good idea of what they should be attacking, destroying. and they succeeded. this, of course -- in pakistan, where i did this reporting, it's widely assumed among people who are trying to deal honestly with the subject that these taliban figure who broke into the base had inside help. they wouldn't have known where to go otherwise. it's a large base. and so you have multiple situations where over the last years where these bases have been attacked. sometimes the attacks have been successfully repelled. sometimes it's not been so successful. >> jeffrey goldberg, fascinating article. thank you. >> thank you. when we come back, we're going to put jeffrey's findings to a pakistani who may have answers. the former army chief, the former president, pervez musharraf. stay with us. doesn't this worry you that this is happening? >> i don't think so. our nuclear ethics are very, very dispersed. and economic growth. north america actually has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. a large part of that is oil sands. this resource has the ability to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. at our kearl project in canada, we'll be able to produce these oil sands with the same emissions as many other oils and that's a huge breakthrough. that's good for our country's energy security and our economy. and started earning loads of points. you got a weather balloon with points? yes, i did. [ man ] points i could use for just about anything. ♪ keep on going in this direction. take this bridge over here. there it is. [ man ] so i used mine to get a whole new perspective. ♪ [ male announcer ] write your story with the citi thankyou premier card, with no point caps, and points that don't expire. get started at thankyoucard.citi.com. with no point caps, and points that don't expire. ♪ ♪ ♪ when your chain of supply ♪ goes from here to shanghai, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ chips from here, boards from there ♪ ♪ track it all through the air, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ clearing customs like that ♪ hurry up no time flat that's logistics. ♪ ♪ all new technology ups brings to me, ♪ ♪ that's logistics. ♪ [ female announcer ] introducing sheer ribbons lotion from gold bond ultimate. [ woman ] for a softness i can feel, radiance i can see. [ female announcer ] new sheer ribbons. as we were discussing, the new article in "the atlantic" paints a frightening perspective of pakistan. pervez musharraf ran pakistan's army and government for much of the last decade. thank you very much, president musharraf. >> you're welcome. >> i'd like to talk about some of the revelations in the article in "the atlantic." the first one is widely known, is that over the last years there have been six attacks by militants on sites that are generally known to be pakistani nuclear sites. you know, the sergoda air base, the atonement, the dara ghadzi site. don't you worry about this happening? >> the nuclear assets? >> yes. >> i don't think so. our nuclear assets are well disbursed, strongly held. &placaand placed in very reinfo areas which are not too accessible. >> you don't think that these attacks were an effort by militants to get at the nuclear arsenal -- >> no, i don't think so at all. >> so in this article, the allegation is based on multiple conversations with pakistani and american sources that after the raid, general kayani called the head of the group and asked them to make weapons more secure from the possibility of a raid by the united states and what was ordered was that the weapons then move in low-tech, low-security convoys, just trucks, and start moving around pakistan. that these trucks had both de-mated components, nuclear components, but also mated ones, intact nuclear weapons. what's your reaction? >> first of all, as far as movement, et cetera, is concerned, i am not privy to any such thing so i wouldn't be able to comment. i don't know. >> was it -- in your day, was special a policy to move these weapons around in trucks? >> no, that was not a policy, and i don't know whether it's being done now. i don't know it. but as far as this mating and demating is concerned, they are all de-mated. i think even when we had a confrontation with india, we never mated the weapons. and i don't think india did. so because we have conventional strength to meet the challenges of war. so we don't have to go unconventional right away. therefore they were kept mated. >> you said they were de-mated because they were effectively live nuclear weapons? >> yes, and they are not required to be mated. and therefore, they were never mated. i don't -- whoever has written this, i don't know whether this is true. >> under your rule you did not allow this -- >> everything that the spd does, doesn't have to be informed to the president or the prime minister of pakistan. things are done independently, they're -- their locations, their movement from science organizations to the force. nobody tells you all the time everything that is happening. governance is not such a one-sided, one-track issue. there are 1,000 things happening. these thing are not -- >> but an issue when nuclear weapons were being moved around the country, showerly as president you would have been told in general this is the process, not every time that these things happens -- >> no, no, never told. there are locations to be held, and there are forces to hold them. now it is not that every time something moves, okay, we are moving this from point a to point b. such regular information, running commentary is not given, you know. >> but you really have no worries about the security of the -- of the arsenal? the fact that they're moving them around, if they were, would that suggest to you that there is some kind of nervousness about attacks either from -- by militants or potentially a plan by the united states -- >> no. i don't think it is possible from my parly military perspective for anyone including the united states to attack them that easily. they are very well dispersed and in good positions and guarded. so therefore, i don't think it's as simple as osama bin laden action or one point action which is a soft target. this is a very hard target. these are very hard targets. and in places which are not accessible. >> with the rise of militant and terrorist attacks in pakistan that the isi has suffered, that the pakistani army has suffered, you don't worry about the security of pakistan's nuclear weapons? >> i don't. i don't. unless pakistan is -- the governance of pakistan is taken over by some religious extremist political organization. >> do you think that could happen? >> i don't think so. the moment, religious parties only have 3% or 4% of the total seats. and i don't see that happening in the near future. >> let's talk about the osama bin laden issue because osama bin laden presumably went to abadabad and started living there while you were president. there are, as you know, an enormous amount of suspicion and there are modest amounts of intelligence evidence that suggests that he had to have had some local support. he was living as people often point out one mile from pakistan's version of wonest point, your military training academy. what is your sense of what happene happened? >> my sense is clear that it's not a sense of complicity, it's a sense of terrible negligence. i say that, yes. if it was for -- if he believed that he was there for five years, i say if he believe because i'm not fully convinced that he was holed up this for five years. however, might take the word of the united states that they ought to give some evidence about that. two years was in my tenure. and i know that i didn't know. one thing i am very sure of, 500% sure of is that i didn't know. is it possible at the lower level, is it possible that the army or intelligence was following a policy which was not given by me? i don't think that is possible because -- because they -- i am from them, i am from the army. an officer mainly by the army. >> you've been critical of president obama's decision to withdraw -- draw daown american troops in afghanistan. you said you thought having timetables was a bad idea. now you've begun to talk about what afghanistan would look like as america draws down. do you see a great game beginning where pakistan and india struggling for influence in the battleground that is afghanistan? >> india is certainly, certainly doing that. and unfortunately, if one government is going along. i know that diplomats, intelligence personnel, military men, security people, go to india for training. i have been behind backwards -- >> from snafg. >> -- from afghanistan? >> from afghanistan. i have been be bending backwards, saying we open our training institution free of cost. come to afghanistan, we'll train you. not one has come. >> but he gave a speech or statement the other day saying if america were to attack pakistan, afghanistan would be by pakistan's side. what do you make of that? >> i think -- i think this is -- totally preposterous to imagine this kind of thing. and then i thank him that this is the first time he's made a pro-pakistan statement. >> so you don't don't trust him? >> not at all. >> what do you think that will happen to him? will he be able to hold on to power as americans draw down? does he have support in pakistan? >> i think it's going to be very difficult, very difficult. very, very difficult. he is not liked by the majority because of what he's doing. >> what you're describing, though, as the united states draws down, is the potential for very unstable afghanistan with a weak karzai at the head. pakistan and india struggling for domination. >> yes. there's confusion. there's confusion. i get a feeling that maybe we really will work toward whatever happened then. now if we have a strong army which they are trying to develop, i think a strong army there, but is it balanced? is the strong army again going to be target dominated? so therefore, are they starting a new war with the taliban, platooned? really i don't know these things. maybe this something happening which is much wiser than what i am thinking, but i don't know. >> pervez musharraf, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> and we will be back. who's the president of ubeci-becki-stan-stan. ki-becki-. hey, did you ever finish last month's invoices? sadly, no. oh. but i did pick up your dry cleaning and had your shoes shined. well, i made you a reservation at the sushi place around the corner. well, in that case, i better get back to these invoices... which i'll do right after making your favorite pancakes. you know what? i'm going to tidy up your side of the office. i can't hear you because i'm also making you a smoothie. [ male announcer ] marriott hotels & resorts knows it's better for xerox to automate their global invoice process so they can focus on serving their customers. with xerox, you're ready for real business. what makes us number one in motorcycle insurance? we love bikes. we love riders. and most of all, we love to ride. perfect hair every time. leading the pack in motorcycle insurance. now, that's progressive. call or click today. we've been talking about pakistan a fair bit today. we've mentioned afghanistan. but