Terror Sanctuary News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

16th year. >> losing what is we're doing now. spending that huge sum of money. or if we pull out completely, which is another option, the taliban or isis ends up taking over the u.s. embassy and their flag flies over the top. that's what losing looks like. winning looks like building and maintaining afghan security capacity to control their terrain so it's not a terror sanctuary. that's the main goal of the united states. deny terror sanctuary. let's not worry about the nation building. if you set security in the country their economy will develop. >> bill: is the president open to this idea? ...

The taliban ought to do that. they are making money off the illegal mining gold, opium and hash. we haven't legalized capitalism really. >> is the white house signing on to your plan in any way? have they given you an answer? if i was a member of the military, one of the dozens being sent into afghanistan next i would say what's the game plan here. >> the president has heretofore rejected the pentagon's approach for more money and more troops, kind of the same approach the last 16 years. >> have you seen what you are suggesting work somewhere else? sure, i mentioned in the article and say the ...

What is the goal for america in afghanistan? to deny terror sanctuary, that's it. >> let's bring in nbc news military analyst and retired four star army general barry mccaffrey. >> and just said, barry mccaffrey is going to say this is the worst plan he's ever heard of and we should spend billions more and put more troops in afghanistan. >> he's a very intelligent and impressive guy, no question about it. this is not a strategy, it's what we call a national security policy and ninen pop idea. petraeus, mcchrystal, mcmaster with the ph.d. we're not going to out of our 2.2 million person departm...

Thing? afghanistan? it's the longest war in our history. and americans are still dying. so you go through a rationalization. people say a viceroy? no, it's not as a colonial figure. it's really to do unity of command. since we've had nothing like that in the last 16 years. you've had 17 commanders in those years. plus different ambassadors, cia station chiefs. you have to have one person that is in charge of all u.s. government policy, spending, rules of engagement for afghanistan and pakistan since they are linked. we haven't had that. view that person almost as a bankruptcy trustee that can ...

People say advice, not as a colonial figure, it's about unity of command. you've had 17 commanders in those years and different ambassadors and chiefs, you have you have to one person in charge of policy spending and rules of engagement since they are link ed. >> view that as a bankruptcy trustee that can scale away the bad spending we have and scale down. what is the goal in america for afghanistan? do deny terror sanctuary, that's it? if we strengthen the the afghan forces from the battalion level up, the u.s. isn't doing anything below the core level. but the battalion is 600 people. by put...