tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 20, 2014 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
democratic transition continue. a deal brokered by john kerry appears to be in pearl. emerging between the two camps. the taliban are making military gains in the south and near the capital of kabul. has written a new book, on, america's secret war in afghanistan from 1979-1989." back atased to have him this table. anyone who wants to understand afghanistan and pakistan turns to you, including the president of the united states because you are principal advisor as he was policy.ing even bob woodward said the advisor intelligence
has produced a vital and concise history of that part of the world. the future of afghanistan? >> we are at the moment of truth in the future of cap -- of afghanistan. one of these two individuals is going to have to admit that he lost. that is not going to be easy. it is not easy for an afghan politician to admit he has lost. he will have to admit he cheated on an industrial scale and tried to steal the election. that is going to be hard. let's assume we can get over this hurdle, we can get behind the presidential elections, and next year we will see whether the resident's gamble that we could build an afghan army good enough, the president of the united states's gamble that we
could build an army good enough, it has always been a gamble. indications are it looks like the afghan army is holding by and large but there are troubling individual incidents. some fights in kandahar this last week in which the afghan army looks at you did fairly poorly. we will be watching this fairly closely for the next two years. it could unravel like iraq unraveled. that is why we need to be careful not to set all of our decisions about what our force in january 2017 today. the president has backed himself into a corner. >> why did he do that? >> i am not a psychologist. i do not know why he didn't. >> very few people think that was a wise thing to indicate a date. when you would withdraw x number of troop's. one of the most important
things you want to do is keep your enemy and doubt in what you are going to do. and signal in -- in advance we will be at this date will be at this level of forces and then at zero. they decided to set the so far in advance the president has time to change his mind. the lesson of iraq ought to influence that. we used in a timer approach. it turned out afterwards that we have miscalculated whether al could have qaedaism recovered. >> in terms of what the government of afghanistan will be like. >> we need to keep flexibility. >> you stay there until how long? >> i would continue on the path
we are on moving down to half 3000 or 4000 in 2016. i would not decide what 2017 is today. i would wait and see. maybe we need 2000. maybe we would need nobody. stories-- there are that what happened to all the weapons the u.s. provided. they do not have the accountability of whose hands they are in. >> this president inherited a disaster in afghanistan. when i did the strategic review in 2009, this country was on the verge of catastrophic failure in afghanistan. no one did bookkeeping. no one had any idea who the enemy was. no one realized that pakistan was playing both sides of the fence. and still are. you start from that base, of course you're not going to know how much arms are in the hands of the afghan army at this stage.
we did not do her homework for seven years. .- our homework for seven years it is hard to catch up in the eighth and ninth year of the conflict. >> why is it so hard to build an army in a country like a -- afghanistan? >> a good question. the soviets in the 1980's built-in afghan air force which is three or four times larger than what we have built in afghanistan over the last decade. that is amazing to me. what could the soviets trained them to fly airplanes and not us? russian manuals and teach them in russian? it comes down to a question of resources. resourcesngest time went to iraq. when we started the resources in 2009 and 2010, we imposed a timeline on how long it was going to be. we -- we can still pull those
out but all along the way the day we went into afghanistan in 2001 we have inflicted demo -- damage on ourselves over and over again. brightest, thee u.s. intelligence community have inn sent to afghanistan 2001, early 2002. >> where are the smart people from the pentagon and national security counsel when that decision was made? >> a lot of people protested it but they did it very quietly. >> do not do this now because of afghanistan. not about whether they were weapons of mass distraction. what happened in afghanistan will be eroded. >> if you wanted to try to take over country left at -- like afghanistan which had known 20 years of war, they had been invaded not by one superpower but by two superpowers which had
been poor to start with and try to get back on track you needed to put in resources. what did we do, we put in roughly 10,000 troops for the next three years. on as putting a band-aid sucking chest wound. >> could we have not done anything about corruption? >> corruption across asia is a big challenge. we are not going to fix it. >> what do you leave once you defeat al qaeda? >> although -- one of the things we need to leave is some kind of residual counterterrorism capability. that does not mean we have cap drone strikes in pakistan every day or even every month. but i would like to know that the u.s. has the unilateral counterterrorism capability to deal with the revival of al qaeda and pakistan for the fewest -- foreseeable future. one thing we know for sure, the government will not do anything
about the revival. >> i want to come to that in a moment. with respect to the surge which came out of the decision making that you were involved in, was that a good idea? >> yes. i did not think we had much choice. >> things were so awful. >> if you look at stanley mcchrystal's report which anyone can read on the "washington post" website, he says we were on the verge of catastrophic defeat. he said the prisons we were operating in afghanistan in 2009 and 310 were incubators for the taliban and al qaeda, they controlled the prisons. the counterinsurgency if prisons you are running are an incubator for the emmy you are in deep, deep trouble. >> flip over to pakistan.
i has always allowed in north waziristan a safe haven for the people who were fighting in the u.s. and the afghan government so they could slide back and forth at will. >> that is right. >> generals i have interviewed said you can never win as long as they can do that. do you agree? >> it is awfully hard. very few countries in one generation fight the same or twice and we have done that in afghanistan. it is a whole lot easier if you have the pakistanis helping you overthrow the government in kabul than if you were in kabul fight the insurgency. they took all the casualties strategic- of the
[indiscernible] do the opposite in the last 12 years and it is very hard to do. the only solution that makes any sense is to build up an afghan army that can deal with that sanctuary for the long haul. >> you just said which is an interesting historical point and it is wonderful reading. the idea that we are familiar with the idea that the soviet union came in and occupied and controlled afghanistan. and conventional lore is that the afghanistan tribes kicked them out because they got sidewinder missiles and charlie wilson played a role in that. you're saying who really kicked
out the russians was the president of pakistan, a military dictator. >> that is right. jimmy carter and ronald reagan made the same kind of deal with that churchill made with joseph stalin. that was the bad guy that we got. there were consequences, inevitably. jimmy carter and ronald reagan knew that there were be consequences. if you step back and look at the whole thing, the secret war in the 1980's was a global game changer. cost of $3 billion and not a single american casualty. the soviet union was defeated create within six months -- the soviet union was a fetid. within six months the wall fell. the cold war ended. with kicking the
soviet union out of afghanistan. >> that was the catalyst. we will never know if the soviet union had not been defeated what would have happened. >> will never know if someone different than gerber chad -- gorbachev had been head of the general secretary of the party and resisted more. lostat did happen is they and the cold war came to an end. and the danger of thermonuclear war between the u.s. and russia. >> were there lessons to be learned for the u.s. after it kicked al qaeda out or the taliban? >> the big lesson there is you cannot just walk away from afghanistan. this is very dangerous part of the world. it seems to be a place where important things happen because not only was a global changer in terms of the end of the cold war, we can say 25 years later, it was the start of the global jihad. >> it was often repeated by the media and her buddy my every analyst would come to this table.
if you read your history the afghans are so tough and independent and so trouble that in the end they will kick you out. but what happened to the russians and before the russians and the u.s. >> it is the graveyard district. it is bad history. a lot of countries have conquered afghanistan. the arabs and alexander the great and the mongols in the british -- and the british. history is helpful. when people give you these nice slogans, you should ask you that is right. >> you think of exceptions and you know it is not. ofthen, the dictator pakistan get some credit in your judgment, a lot of credit, primary credit with the help of american arms, sidewinder missiles and the rest of them to kick out the russians. what happened? >> we lost interest. there was a terrible civil war. the city of kabul was not
the war between the hajadeendean -- mu and the russians. all seeback, we can this. george bush senior had a pretty full plate. he had the disintegration of the soviet union and the creation of new countries like ukraine and the reunification of germany, the iraqi invasion of kuwait. afghanistan which had been number one or number two on president reagan's priority list when down to maybe number 50. -- bush 41, with no attention to afghanistan it disintegrated into civil war and became a broken state.
from that emerged the tell dan. liban. telta an admonishment by charlie wilson. if you abandon this place. >> it is a great book and even a better movie. it puts a little bit too much on a texas congressman, an interesting texas congressman. >> there is also this, isi and osama bin laden. tell me what you know. >> osama bin laden arrived in pakistan within a week after the soviet invasion. it took place on christmas eve, 19 79. osama bin laden shows up within a week or so. before the first cia arms and money even arrived. he starts off as basically a
fundraiser and then he becomes a combat engineer. he was building tunnels and underground storage facilities for the isi to assist the afghan s. the family business. he was an expert in construction. he was a real engineer. he knew what he was doing and he had access to his families huge -- his family's huge fortune and their construction gear. the isi had to be intimately involved. >> there was a relationship between the isi, the pakistani secret service and osama bin laden from the get-go. >> absolutely. the second thing we know for sure is it was the isi who introduced osama bin laden to when osama bin laden
came back to afghanistan. he left and goes off to the sudan and the u.s. gets him chased out and he comes back and it is the iis i that -- isi the connected them. when president clinton fired tomahawk missiles after the attack on the embassies in east africa, we know who was at that location. whom wereicers, 10 of killed. we know that for fact. what were they doing at that location? they were getting ready to meet osama bin laden. >> did he leave and turn one way rather than another way? >> there are all kinds of stories. he may have been there, i half hour off, we do know is who was there and that is the isi. when this connection, when this relationship came to an end or if it ever came to an end is one of the biggest mysteries we still do not know. >> the relationship came to an
end. >> between the isi and osama bin laden. >> if it ever became -- came to an end. and broughthim justice to him in 2011. very suspicious. >> he could not have existed like that. >> he was hiding in the facility less than a mile from the front door of the pakistani equivalent of west point. a closed military zone. pakistani generals routinely overflew that facility and helicopters day in and day out. none of them ever saw this tall man walking around on the roof, nobody in the pakistani intelligence service ever wondered what is going on in that building? the people in the region referred to the house as the waziristan house. they knew someone who was from waziristan or who had connections. >> why would they know that?
>> it must have been clear to people in the neighborhood that somebody important -- >> you believe this went up to the chief of staff of the army. >> i know a lot about the isi, i have studied them, have worked with them. it is not a rogue institution. you do not get promoted by blowing up embassies and not telling them. itthe isi new -- knew -- would be a risky career move. >> i have had one u.s. official after another sit at this table and say as far as we know they did not know. >> we have no smoking gun, that is true. there is no smoking gun. would you expect you're going to find, a button inside the hideout that said in trouble, get this -- push this button and get the general -- general
of isi. >> we thought he was our -- generals have a remarkable capacity to persuade americans that they are on our side. musharraf to general [indiscernible] to give jimmy carter and ronald reagan credit they looked into those eyes and knew that he was on our side this weekend for this objective. they did not come to the belief that he was eternally on our side. if you are against us, we will have to do terrible things to you. you am sure when he tells
your with us or against us it is a powerful threat. i think general musharraf looked at this and said, ok. i have to make some adjustments. i have to play the game carefully. in time, i can go back. book, which is a fantastic book, general musharraf's memoirs which should be in the fiction section, he says he didn't wargame and and thed that pakistan u.s. went to war, and it would be the biggest in a fishy area. i do not think he really didn't wargame but -- did a wargame. how does this influence our relationship with india? impact.ir has a huge
>> exactly. >> back to afghanistan. you believe that they had to know from the get-go, they had to know when he came there because general share of -- mu sharraf never lies. he sat in this chair and said he was not there for five years. he saidonger but shorter. he was not there for five years. >> right after osama bin laden raf pointed mushar out, i remember that house, i rub her jogging by it. he had that item pulled off the -- remember her jogging by it. he had that item pulled off the internet because it was too revealing about what he should have known. af's motives are hard to understand. >> this is way off the wall. we know a bit about how to turn people and how to get people for
a price to come over to our side treat we have done that in our history. someone at isi to say he is at the military academy? number one.hreat when we went in and got osama and lot in the reaction of most pakistani generals was not, all my god. most pakistani generals's response was if they can do this, could they steal our nuclear arsenal? it is apples and oranges. one person is hugely different but that was their reaction. they regard us as the existential threat along with india. >> it is sometimes said that if
in fact iran gets a nuclear weapon that the saudi's would go to their friends and pakistan that they have given a lot of money to and say we need some weapons. is that your understanding of what might happen? there are certainly a lot of smoke about that. very close relations. there is no closer relationship than the one between saudi arabia and pakistan. they are meeting and meeting eid there and with the royals. i do not have proof positive, i do not have a signed contract. i do not think anyone has a signed contract but in extremis if saudi arabia goes to pakistan and says we need nuclear weapons it will be pretty hard for any pakistani leader to say no. question. also this
about thedi's worry fact that the arab spring could come to them? >> absolutely. when the arab spring began king of dollar invested $30 billion in buying off the saudi population. that is a lot of money even for saudi's. that tells me he and the other royals were worried it could happen to them and they responded in the best way they could. everyone has got everything i want, try to buy everybody off. it worries them a lot. it is one of the reasons why they supported the military coup in egypt. they were the first within sisies to endorse the government. >> and protested the overthrow of mubarak. and limning the u.s.
-- blaming the u.s. >> they are propping him up. >> the egyptian government is less dependent on the united states. >> less dependent. every time.hey make >> the studies were scared to death and they feel a little more comfortable now but not a whole lot. the middle east that surrounds them must look very dangerous. the iranian enemy, isis, the sworn enemy of the saudi's. extremists are not the pro-saudi islamic extremists. the guy says he wants to be a caliph. that means the king of saudi arabia is illegitimate. if you're sitting in the royal palace in riyadh it is a pretty dangerous situation all around you. some success. in egypt, you rolled back history. overthrowing sisi to
mohamed morsi. >> sisi was in the past the egyptian defense attaché at riyadh. long-standing relationship with the saudi intelligence service area >> it shows you to understand history you look at the relationships. took over and king i do notcalled him think that was prearranged. cnn, let me call you up. it was partially made in saudi arabia. ♪ in his >> khalid mashal is a return
i was working for president clinton when the phone call came in from king hussein saying i need your help right away. israelis have done something in my capital city which is inexcusable. they have tried to kill a guest inside my country. he me call up bebe, and said, we did it because the team that carried it out were captured by jordanians and he agreed to send over the serum. >> is that because king hussein called bebe or he knew the israelis will? or because president clinton said, get theand serum over there? >> clinton's call was critical. place.s in a way out >> he had reached too far.
>> and he fired the head of the mossad. who had carried out this operation. what does ha him, mas want? >> hamas wants to survive in gaza and wants to come out of this war. they want to still be standing. >> becoming want again more prominent in the arab world -- once again more prominent in the arab world and palestinian world. >> to show that they are, they call themselves the resistant and -- resistance and fatah and the palestinian authority are collaborators. that is what they want to show at the end of all of this and it is a terrible tragedy. that so many gazans, so many israelis are living in a hell. >> i never quite understood i said -- quite understood, i said
they came there and the israelis came to you and they're leaving, we are giving it to you. we're going to hand it back to you. this was ariel sharon. onlye -- probably the person who could have done that. >> he was ailing person. absolutely. >> and they threw it away. away because of real grievances. >> they had grievances then. >> they gave it to them but they left it difficult for them -- >> the big mistake is in hindsight, unilateral withdrawal was a mistake. sharon should have negotiated withdrawal with the palestinian authority in which the palestinian authority got credit. i doing it unilaterally he undermined -- he did not want to wait and he didn't like the
palestinian authority. >> what will happen in gaza? >> it will get worse before it gets -- >> how worse will it get? >> it could mean israel preoccupies in effect the gaza -- and re-occupies in effect the gaza strip. if defense forces stay there they will be occupying about half the gaza strip. >> they believe they will do that because they will wipe out hamas once and for all. is that the goal? >> they want to eliminate the tunnels. >> what do they mean? >> they would like to see thomas collapse butamas that is dangerous because who will take their place? >> is it possible for hamas and fatah or the palestinian authority to form a palestinian government that is not dedicated to the overthrow of israel and believe it is possible to live in a two state side-by-side
solution? >> i believe that the solution to the airport for an israeli conflict has been staring us in the face since cap -- camp david back in 2000. camp david and the parameters that emerged out of the end of it. that is basically what you laid out. a two state solution on the lines of the 1967 borders. >> some definition of the right of return at work. >> the right of return will be to the west bank of gaza. it has been staring us in the face for well over 15 years. it is a question of political will. it is clear -- on both sides. >> to take the risk interest the other side but verify. >> it is increasingly clear that that political will will probably not generate from within the region. it will take the united states,
a very tough series of negotiations to provide the political will. >> could it be aided by the arab league or some -- >> there are a lot of people who could help. whether they will or not is another question. there are a lot of people who could help. >> why does qatar support hamas? strange state. a rivalry with saudi arabia. qatar is a tiny little city state and saudi arabia is a big country and home of the two holiest places in islam but qatar does not want to be told how to do its business and it has enough money that he can spite the saudi's and do whatever it wants to do and it has become a habit. now they like to spite the saudi's and the saudis are
anti-muslim brotherhood. >> they've created al jazeera. gave the u.s. a crucial military base. they are playing both sides. does that make them smart? >> and make some clever. whether it makes them smart i do not know but it makes them clever. from the saudi standpoint, qatar is the village that got out of control. >> what are they prepared to do about the village out of control? >> they have withdrawn the saudi ambassador. this is the toughest play. > they are talking all the time. the week i was there. >> they may be doing something else. it is interesting that qatar's b ofto host the world cup soccer is the subject of all these revelations of corruption.
wonder where all those revelations are coming from? >> you think it is a neighbor? >> i do not know but it would not shock me at all. >> they support hamas to spite their neighbors if they want some kind of islamist street credit? >> that is an important factor as well. only -- the only arab country actively supporting hamas, the qataris are eating a lot of credit on the street. that they are supporting the palestinians who are fighting and dying. >> innocents dying. israel. a you believe that they want two state solution and do you bestve they really want interest of the palestinians or do they like the situation now,
and they want just to play that out? israelis -- >> i am talking about the people and power. >> netanyahu and the people in his government were quite content and filled the could manage it and keep it where it is. not enthusiastic supporter of the two states still -- solution. >> only after his arm had been wrenched behind his back. >> they -- just to carry it out. on the you had bebe phone as you did when you were in the room with clinton. when you tell him it is in your national security interest to solve this problem? >> i would tell him it is in -- it is in israel's interest.
a solution that strengthens the palestinians who want to make a deal and you figure out how to do that. i am willing to give my advice but that ought to be your prime objective. believed this, the national security interest with israel. the whiteoing to house and shaking us arafat's -- shaking arafat's hand. has failed to focus on the real issue facing israel and that is the palestinian issue. he focuses on the iran issue to divert israeli opinion. this is a man who spent hours in meetings with the prime minister over many years, and i think he has a right. divertocuses on iran to focus from the palestinian issue. he says iran is the big enemy
and nuclear weapons by iran would be the worst thing that could happen. israelreal problem confronts and it is obvious to anyone watching tv today is the relationship with palestinians that are not 1000 miles away but our next-door. israelis and palestinians have to find a way to live with each other. otherwise -- >> and a strong, economically vibrant palestine next israel with strong economic trade, strong bonds of that kind is the best thing that could possibly happen for israelis long-term -- raeli's long term security. it is time not on israel's side? >> if you look at the develop of -- development of al qaedaism, i
do not think time is on israel's side. the idea of al qaeda is that jihad is the only solution to the problems of islam. it is a growing idea. you see it in iraq and syria and yemen. five years ago you did not see al qaedaism in syria. you did not see it in egypt. now we see it in egypt. i think -- >> it is growing. >> those trends are very disturbing if you are someone who cares about the survival and security of the state of israel. >> it is threatening to the security of a lot of places. >> absolutely. target number one, osama bin laden, everything he said in his entire career, when we have defeated the americans, then we'll move on israel. that is the target number one. >> he wanted to drive them out
of the middle east. >> osama bin laden basically took what he did or what he was part of in winning the war against the soviets in afghanistan in the 1980's and said let's do the same thing to the americans. we will encourage them to come into afghanistan and we will fight a guerrilla war against them and sooner or later, they will be exhausted and defeated and go home. going not realize he was to get a bonus that the americans were not only going to go into afghanistan, they would go into iraq and he would have to quagmires to bog the united states down and. fortunately especially in afghanistan, we were able to find afghans who wanted to be on our side. that is a big difference between the soviet war and the american war. in the soviet war, the vast majority of afghans were on the ujahadeen.e m
side, at least they have been until now. >> there is a rise of islamism, anradical jihadism, important point to make. is that the most vexing challenge to america? it is not a state. >> it is vexing in two very dangerous ways. al qaeda 3.0 is a threat. the national counterterrorism center has raised the alarm that all these westerners going to iraq and syria are going to come back and just like the volunteers who went to afghanistan in the 1980's they will come home with an agenda.
not just to burnish their medals from the battles, they will be new tackles ahead. that is what concerns me. the global jihadist in pakistan which are under pressure now from the american drone operations are the most dangerous at the end of the day because what they want to do is provoke a war between two nuclear weapons states, india and pakistan. that to me is the worst possible outcome of all the foreign-policy disasters. see india asgroups an artificial creation and they want to restore the empire. there is crazy as this caliphate in iraq but more dangerous because they're talking about playing with nuclear weapons. >> they had enough money to buy one. >> it is a vexing issue.
at the if you look edwardions put out from snowden about what america's top intelligence priorities are, if you look at that paper, it says that pakistan's nuclear weapons in the security of the nuclear weapons are among the top two or three or four intelligence priorities of the world. keep theme pakistanis secure, the pakistanis do not want our help as they are convinced that any help we give them in securing their nuclear weapons is actually an effort to clandestinely find out where the nuclear weapons are in they're probably right about that. >> they will not let us talk to a coupon -- a.q. khan. was able to fly around
the world on a pakistani air force jet and sell stuff and have it delivered. the last time i checked on expedia you can i get the pakistani air force jet to deliver your stuff. the military was intimately involved in everything he was doing. a lot of pakistani politicians, including benazir bhutto, were involved. in earlynvolved negotiations with north korea on exchanging nuclear secrets in return for missile parts. .he admits it in her memoirs was on your show and told you the truth, it would be highly embarrassing for the government of pakistan and many pakistanis. >> he is a national hero in
pakistan. >> he is the father of the nuclear weapon. the only muslim country that has a nuclear weapon. >> who is most likely to get it next? iran, obviously. >> iran, there is a chance for this yield is a thing seven parties to this deal would prefer deal to nuclear war. p5 plus one and the iranians. >> they did not want to be decimated. >> iranians do not want to be decimated. they will put a hard deal on the table. what concerns me is with the ukraine situation we will see the russians fall off the wagon. >> it did not happen but we are looking back and it is one of those what-if questions. jimmy carter had said i will level iran and we have the nuclear weapons i can do it and i realize i am sacrificing great americans but i am prepared to
do it because you are setting a precedent. this is embarrassing. worse than embarrassing. war. a declaration of we're going to win this war and we realize there will be l he onees, but you wil of them. what would have happened? >> i suspect he would have called his bluff. >> because he was a religious fanatic? were you aware of information to believe that? >> i worked on that problem for 444 days. there was pretty strong information that khomeni was prepared to sacrifice his country. information from people who knew him. i will give you a counterpoint. when jimmy carter was told that the iranians were seriously thinking about putting their hostages on trial as war criminals and spies, he sent
this tosage, if you do my there will be war. they never went on trial. seems to me to be contradictory. >> i am afraid my answer is contradictory in that one. tells me he my gut would have called our bluff but when carter did send a very tough message in august or september of 1980, they never went on trial. know any other way they could have gotten the hostages out other than the way they tried? >> no. was, ofrt one tragedy all the possible outcomes of thanmission, much better
some of the disasters that could have happened later on. >> like? run ande gotten into to getting the hostages in the commandos all the way outside iran, a really difficult mission. that is why bob gates when he looked at the mission to kill some of the new -- osama bin laden his mind was occupied with desert one. it was a real longshot and it failed early on. it could have failed even more catastrophically on the streets of tehran. >> he was in the cia then. the interesting thing is what he -- wasto do is he will prepared to go and bomb the hell out of the building and take him out whether he was there or not. that was a gutsy call. >> a very gutsy call. a remarkable call. would have advised him to do that. >> suppose bob gates stood up
and said you know how hard this is and this could turn out like desert one, what would you have said? history of bobg gates telling me i am wrong about something. i think the world of bob gates but the president did the right thing. one more thing i would say about that call. when he decided to send the seal team in he also made the decision not to tell the pakistanis and when you stand back, think about it for a minute. presidents, bush and obama had given pakistan $25 billion, billion dollars in aid why? since september 11, to fight al qaeda. when the president was told this is where he is he decided he could not trust them.
25 billion dollars. we continue. >> what if we had not given them the $25 billion? view abillion was in my worthwhile effort and seeing if we could bribe the pakistanis and we know the answer. we could not. so my response today would be come a we tried it and it was worth a try but do not keep trying to bribe them. it is not going to work. >> did you believe the mission could work? mccraven said, this is what we do. we send helicopters into places and pick them up and bring them home and the president said ok. ten years ofat warfare and iraq and afghanistan have honed the capabilities of our special forces to a level that is unique in the world. >> what are you writing your memoir? when do you get clearance?
>> this is "taking stock" for wednesday, august 20th. today's theme is danger. mortgages just invented a danger to the financial system. we are joined by the cofounder of mozilla. we have details. the conflict between russia and ukraine makes an opportunity for one chief executive. we will meet the ceo of a company called inter-corp. aqua fan looks to protect buildings from the dangers of