Julia Ioffe and Husain Haqqani on US Foreign Relations

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Any light at the end of that tunnel in terms of U.S. efforts to protect against that?

IOFFE: Well, you also had the Senate report that said that Russia – which we did not know about this before, that Russia probed the election infrastructure in all 50 states in 2016. And from Russia’s point of view if you do it, you succeed, and you don’t really get punished, why not keep doing it if it works? You had the Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnell block any laws that would strengthen election infrastructure. Donald Trump just basically pushed out Dan Coats, a very good director of national intelligence and is nominating basically a political operator of a Congressman who has decried the Mueller investigation and all these election security efforts to be the Director of National Intelligence I think in part because the Russian’s helped him, and as he admitted to George Stephanopoulos from the Oval Office if a foreign country wants to help him win, he will take that help. Again, this comes from the very top unfortunately in the Untied States, and we gave a president who doesn’t seem to – you know, who’s willing to win at all costs even if a foreign adversary helps him. So he is not interested in strengthening our election infrastructure, So Husain, to go back to what you said, sort of pick up this thread about elections, about winning, President Trump, as you’ve pointed out, promised to bring the troops home. And, you know, we’ve got billions of dollars spent. We’ve got hundreds of aircraft and thousands of rounds of ammunition or multiple hundreds of thousands and nobody really to set up the proper Afghan security forces. So why shouldn’t the president and the American people say, “OK, enough already. We’ve been there since 9/11,”?

HAQQANI: I think the president is right in saying enough already. The question is does that basically mean cutting down costs in Afghanistan for which the American government should be talking to the Afghan government? Should it be about reducing the expenses of the American forces in Afghanistan? You must remember that everything from chewing gum to guns go from America rather than anything being procured locally. So if those costs can be cut and a smaller presence can actually do the job, why not? My point, of course, is that a lot of this has to do with how American domestic politics is played. The president just wants to announce victory without having victory, and I don’t think that that is fair to the American people and it certainly is not fair to the Afghan people who will be left at the mercy of the Taliban even through their government signed a bilateral security agreement with the United States under which the Americans were to provide assistance and support in building Afghan forces. My point, of course, is that a lot of this has to do with how American domestic politics is played. The president just wants to announce victory without having victory, and I don’t think that that is fair to the American people and it certainly is not fair to the Afghan people who will be left at the mercy of the Taliban even through their government signed a bilateral security agreement with the United States under which the Americans were to provide assistance and support in building Afghan forces. Look, let’s not get this wrong. The Afghans bought the Talibans long before the Americans showed up in Afghanistan. The Americans came after 9/11. There was a small group of Afghans fighting the Taliban even then