>> What is the only country in the world, Ian, where we have a base that borders China?

Afghanistan.

Why would we give up a base that's on the western flank of China, southern flank of Russia, and eastern flank of Iran if our concern are on those top three adversaries?

♪♪ >> Hello and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer, and today, President Biden promises to boldly go where the past three American presidents ultimately did not -- a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

After 20 years of war, the move is popular at home, but Pentagon officials and defense experts are expressing serious concerns about what comes next for the region as well as the global war on terror.

I'm talking to a Republican lawmaker and combat veteran, Mike Waltz.

Later, a look at the life of a young Afghan woman who has so much to lose if the social progress of the last 20 years evaporates.

But first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by... >> We all know how it started.

>> On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

>> But for two decades, we've wondered how and when America's longest war would come to an end.

Not yet 100 days into his presidency, Joe Biden delivered this answer.

>> I'm now the fourth United States president to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan.

Two Republicans, two Democrats.

I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth.

>> Sounds like a political victory, given the popular support for withdrawal and changing views among Americans about the conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Last year, three quarters supported bringing all the troops home.

Even more telling was a shift in how people felt about being there at all.

The number who believe going to war in Afghanistan was the right decision has steadily declined.

20 years into the conflict, more than 2,300 servicemen and women have been killed.

Ten times as many were wounded.

Civilian death tolls in Afghanistan have been estimated at over 40,000.

And then there's the financial toll, estimated to be as high as $2 trillion back in 2019.

But for all the obvious benefits, there are real risks involved in President Biden's decision.

Afghanistan could quickly fall back into the hands of the Taliban, a disaster for the citizens of that country.

Afghan girls and women have made real gains in freedom at the hands of the United States and allies, rights and education, which many fear will collapse as the last foreign troops exit.

The proposed timing is also cause for concern -- September 11, 2021.

In a year filled with too many grim milestones, the 20th anniversary of the largest attack on American soil may also see the United States military walking away, handing a symbolic victory to the extremists it once sought to defeat.

Some veterans and defense experts are calling this another Saigon 1975, the end of the Vietnam War, an American defeat.

Florida Republican Mike Waltz is one of them.

He's the first combat-decorated Green Beret to serve in Congress and was a senior adviser to then President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Congressman Mike Waltz, thanks so much for joining "GZERO World."

>> Yeah, happy to be with you, Ian.

>> You recently said the following about President Biden's announcement of a full U.S. troop withdrawal.

"This announcement breaks my heart."

You said, "The best way to cause another 9/11 to happen is to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan when half the world's terrorist organizations are still there."

Do you believe -- 2,500 U.S. troops remaining at this point -- you think those troops are gone and it becomes a calamity, a catastrophe?

>> Yeah, I do, unfortunately, Ian.

I think we're going to see a descent back into chaos.

The intelligence community has been clear that al-Qaeda does tend to resurge in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal.

I do think the Taliban, unfortunately, is ascendant.

I do not think the Afghan National Security Forces will be able to hold without our air support and without our intelligence support, and importantly, that doesn't often get discussed, without our contract support that's helping them with a lot of their maintenance and logistics.

One of the things I don't know that everyone realizes, when the military goes, those contractors will go.

The CIA, our eyes and ears on the ground, will go.

We literally will have a black hole there.

We're going to repeat the mistakes that President Obama made with the full pullout of Iraq that led to the resurgence of ISIS, that led to the untold hundreds of thousands of deaths around the region, attacks across Europe, attacks across the United States.

Sadly, I think we're about to repeat that movie, that nightmare all over again.

>> And the Pentagon has recently come out.

Just a few days ago, they released a joint statement with NATO, and they promised that, number one, they would continue to fund key Afghan capabilities like the Air Force Special Missions Wing and Afghan Security Forces, and also maintain counterterrorism capabilities in the region sufficient to ensuring Afghanistan cannot become a safe haven for terrorists.

So tell me why either you think that's not the case or to what extent that really what we're talking about is there is a compromise out there to be had.

>> Yeah, listen, I understand the Pentagon's talking points, but I've been talking directly with a number of their leaders.

There is no plan.

They're incredibly concerned.

Here's why this is even worse than the pullout of Iraq.

In Iraq, as you know, Ian, just looking at the geography, we have all kinds of basing options to go back in when we eventually needed to as ISIS went surging across the country and almost took Baghdad after they took Mosul.

We have Turkey, we have Israel, we have Kuwait, we have the Gulf States, we have Kurdistan and our local Kurdish allies, both in Syria and Iraq.

We don't have any of that in Afghanistan, none.

We have Russia in the stans, China, Iran and Pakistan.

We give up that one base at Bagram, we literally are out of options.

And the other piece that I find really egregious coming from the administration is this promise to keep funding the Afghan Security Forces with no Americans there to oversee those billions of dollars that are going into one of the most corrupt governments, but going into the Security Forces as they try to fight back against the Taliban.

And finally, you know, one of the reasons that Biden cited in his withdrawal speech was great power competition and a shift to great power competition.

I fully support that.

I've spent a year on a China task force.

I believe we are in a cold war with the Chinese Communist Party, or at least they are with us and we just need to wake up to it.

But what is the only country in the world, Ian, where we have a base that borders China?

Afghanistan.

Why would we give up a base that's on the western flank of China, southern flank of Russia, and eastern flank of Iran if our concern are on those top three adversaries?

>> I'm going to talk to you about China directly in a moment.

There's a lot to discuss there, but I want to stick with the topic at hand for the time being.

I mean, the United States has the world's largest blue-water navy.

The ability to mass forces in the Indian Ocean is certainly real.

There is some discussion talking about using -- engaging in agreements in countries like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan to have bases in the region.

We've got drone capacity.

We've got intelligence capacity.

Are none of those remotely close to being able to use the Bagram base?

And if so, why not?

>> All of the stans, K2 in Uzbekistan, Manas in Kyrgyzstan -- we've been asked to leave years ago, and I do not see the Russians allowing us to have basing there again.

If you just look at the distances that are in play coming from the Gulf States, one, we don't have authorities yet.

We may get them, but we don't have them yet to launch lethal strikes into Afghanistan from those states.

And the distances that we have make that incredibly problematic.

Just with a drone -- I was just talking to the Pentagon about this a few days ago -- we'll use up three quarters of its fuel getting there and back.

That gives it very little time to stay on station.

You know, it's a landlocked country.

We have to keep those overflight rights over Pakistan.

But that's always problematic.

But the real issue is, you know, in order to have that source network on the ground, you have to have people on the ground.

>> Does that necessarily mean that you no longer have U.S. military in an advisory capability, for example?

Does that necessarily mean that you no longer have the U.S. intelligence officers that are prepared and engaged directly with Afghan sources on the ground?

>> You know, I can tell you, I just spoke to someone just back from our embassy in Kabul.

They're burning documents as we speak.

You know, I can see a small presence left there, but that cannot nearly handle the types of sources that we meet -- that we need going out and about.

And it can't possibly oversee the billions of dollars going into the Afghan army out into the hinterlands that I think we'll need for effective oversight.

>> So given all of that, what in your mind would a future U.S. presence look like and what kind of condition based successes could one expect?

>> I foresee a small presence there for some time.

Look, we've had 50,000 in Japan since World War II, 30,000 in South Korea.

I mean, you know the numbers.

We still have a battalion in the Sinai since the Suez Canal crisis.

So if we want to bring a few thousand troops home, there is a lot of places we could do it without incurring such massive risks as we do in Afghanistan.

And not to mention the fact that next door is five times the population in Pakistan that could be drugged into chaos as well.

But this time you have a nuclear arsenal at play.

I get it -- hard, long and expensive.

I understand the frustration.

Nobody does more than me, who's lost Green Berets there in combat.

My fear is that we're going to lose many more having to fight our way back into Afghanistan just as we did into Iraq.

Look at the chaos that unfolded across the region, across Europe and inspired attacks here in the United States with that decision to pull out of Iraq too soon.

Look, I'll be candid.

The next 9/11, the next Pulse nightclub, which is right on the edge of my congressional district, the next San Bernardino, that's now on Biden's watch.

He owns it with this decision.

>> So if the worst comes and the Taliban actually takes over, the Afghan government falls apart, what do you think?

How do you think the United States responds to that?

>> Well, I think it then becomes really paramount of what kind of intelligence access do we have?

What kind of reporting -- how blind will we be?

The agency and the intelligence community has been clear.

"The military goes, we go too."

And what kind of reports are we seeing?

I predict that we'll see a fracturing.

We'll have a Northern Alliance again and we'll be back to where we were in 2001.

Except this time we'll have an incredibly well-armed and trained 300,000-man Afghan army that will have fractured as well.

I fear the civil war will be far worse and we'll find ourselves allying with, aligning with the Northern Alliance again, fighting our way back in and possibly going after al-Qaeda training camps that are threatening the homeland.

It really will be the repeat of a nightmare horror movie.

>> I will go to China.

That's the big sort of elephant in the room.

And you said, we're in a cold war with China, but then you walked it back a bit, and that's okay because I don't think we're in a cold war with China right now.

But you have talked about a boycott of the China Olympics.

Do you think that's a good idea?

>> I do, and to be clear, the preferred action was that the Olympics were moved and we repeatedly asked the International Olympic Committee to do so, and they've rebuffed us now for two years.

So with just 10 months to go, we finally, until the Beijing Olympics in February of '22, I and others introduced a a resolution calling for a boycott.

I don't see how, after unleashing COVID on the world, clearly covering it up, arresting journalists, arresting doctors, refusing to share data and the ongoing genocide that two secretary of states from two different administrations have now agreed is happening, that we reward Beijing with this international platform to whitewash everything that they've done to the world.

And frankly, I think it sends a horrible signal and a horrible message that the world is willing to collectively shrug their shoulders at what's going on with slave labor, ongoing rape and torture, and a mass sterilization campaign of the Uyghur women, on top of Hong Kong, on top of Tibet.

I just -- I feel for our athletes.

I hate it that the IOC is putting them in this situation.

But at this point, I think we have to boycott.

>> President Carter said that the boycott of the Olympics in 1980 was one of the worst decisions that he made as a president.

Very few allies joined along.

It looks like if the U.S. were to engage in a complete boycott that the U.S. would be virtually alone in terms of major advanced industrial economies.

>> Not necessarily, no.

>> Do you worry about that?

>> No, so, 180 -- That's a significant number.

180 human rights organizations from around the world are calling on the same.

I just saw a poll in Canada.

63% of Canadians would support their government in a full boycott.

There is a growing movement in the U.K., Australia, Japan and others.

And to your point on 1980, I also like to look at probably times in history when we didn't and we should've with authoritarian regimes that were emboldened by the platform that the Olympics provides.

We all know what Germany did after 1936.

>> Absolutely.

>> But not as many people realize that Russia invaded the Ukraine just one month after the Sochi Olympics, meaning their military planning was happening while the Olympic Games were going on.

And let's look at what China has done since 2008 when they last had the Olympics.

>> When Xi Jinping coordinated them as vice president, yes.

>> That's right.

So, given that trend of history, what's next after '22?

I fear Taiwan.

>> How much do you worry that the size of China, the fact that China is going to be the world's largest economy by all measures within a decade, I mean, the entire Fortune 500 pretty much is doing massive business inside China.

A boycott would have major knock on economic implications, including for donors, for everyone that runs for Congress.

How do you deal with that?

>> Well, look, I mean, I'm telling these corporations they need to look themselves in the mirror.

How do they donate tens of millions of dollars to social justice causes here in the United States but then just ignore what's going on with as close as we have to modern-day slavery in western China and make millions on top of it, right?

I am going to call them to account.

You know, there's a lot of talk about good corporate governance.

Well, that doesn't just apply on U.S. borders.

That applies around the world, too.

We're drunk on Chinese money, and it's from sports to Disney to Wall Street to our political class, to our universities, think tanks and research institutions.

And that's why this is the most insidious threat we've ever faced.

>> Okay, so before we close, let's at least hit an easier issue.

We've got tens of thousands of Russian troops at the border of Ukraine.

How should the United States be responding to the Russian government right now after all of this, the SolarWinds hack, everything else?

Has Biden's approach been appropriate and commensurate, in your view?

>> Yeah, look, I mean, I'll be candid.

I think the Russian government, the Iranian government, the Taliban, and I can go around the world, I think they smell weakness in Washington right now.

There's an underlying notion -- this is many of the same folks and I know a lot of them that were there in the Obama administration -- there's this underlying philosophy that if we're nice to them, as Obama said in his second inaugural speech, if we extend a hand, then these authoritarian regimes will behave better.

Look, they respond and are deterred by strength and they are emboldened by weakness.

And rightly or wrongly, from everything I'm reading and hearing, that is the perception.

And that's why you saw the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine under the last administration and you're seeing a buildup under this one because they don't believe that there will be real consequences.

So I applaud the sanctions that have gone in place around the SolarWinds hack, but I don't think it's enough.

I think that's the only thing that Putin's eventually going to respond to.

>> But in terms of what the Biden administration is doing right now, what are a couple of concrete measures that -- I mean, you've said, "I want them to push back.

I want them to move the Olympics," which I personally don't think will happen.

But that is certainly a direct policy statement.

What's your direct policy statement on Russia you'd like to see?

>> Lethal aid to the Ukraine.

I think that's the only thing that -- I think that's the only thing that the Russians will respond to.

Their military is incredibly weak, except for a few elite units.

Putin plays a very weak card very well.

They are a declining power.

But at the end of the day, I would like to see the same support for dissidents in China, the same type of tough action towards those that are fighting for their rights in Hong Kong, Tibet, in Shenzhen and others as we are towards Russia.

Look, at the end of the day, I think the Russian problem is one to be managed.

But the Chinese problem is one that I don't know that we're going to eventually prevail.

I do believe at this point the trend lines show us not prevailing.

>> And that's Mike Waltz, congressman from Florida.

And my thanks to you for joining us, and thank you for your service, sir.

>> Alright.

Great to be with you, Ian.

Come on down to Florida anytime.

>> No group in Afghanistan has more on the line as American troops withdraw than young women.

And this latest news shows every sign of making a bad situation worse.

>> My name is Shaista, and I am a 22-year-old university student and I'm from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Life has been relatively normal for me in Kabul because I have had the privilege of having access to basic necessities of life and a good education.

But I am among a very small percentage of Afghans who have had such a life.

Unfortunately, 3.7 million Afghan children are out of the school, but 60% of them are girls.

And I wish that one day all Afghans all across the country can have their privileges and at least basic rights that I have today.

But despite having all of these privileges, the fear of losing my life have always been there, the mental and psychological pressure, losing my life.

And I'm not feeling completely secure.

And I am left with this feeling and this struggle.

[ Explosion ] >> At least four civilians have been killed in a suicide bombing targeting a NATO convoy in Afghanistan.

>> When I was at 11th grade, a suicide-bomb attack happened in front of my school.

We were in the class, and the explosion happened.

The windows shaked, and everybody was scared.

But actually that was the moment that I decided to study politics.

I have worked with civil society organizations and I have participated in campaigns for promotion of human rights.

When I heard the news of U.S. troops withdrawal, the instant feeling would be -- it's hard to describe it bad or good.

I can see it can be both.

I mean, depending on the modality of the withdrawal and the realities on the ground.

Is this decision really the final decision and what will be the follow-up policies?

What'll happen to the peace process?

What the Taliban wanted was the U.S. troops withdrawal.

They are getting it, and the withdrawal is unconditional.

So they wouldn't have any incentive to compromise or to acknowledge the other side.

But I think, you know, 65% of Afghans are under the age of 25.

It's a new generation, a new reality.

And I think the Taliban also will acknowledge this new reality of Afghanistan and this new generation.

I mean, I think this new generation will not let the dark era of the 1990s to be repeated.

American people need to know that Afghans have sacrificed and have stood beside Americans to fight global terrorism and also for their own rights and prosperity.

We have suffered a lot, but we have also changed a lot.

We have achievements and we have progress that we all can be proud of.

I am one of those achievements, and hopefully Americans do not ignore those achievements and do not ignore the fate of millions of Afghans, especially women, in a pullout that is rushed or I would say abrupt.

>> And that's our show this week, but before we go today, I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the loss of a dear friend and mentor.

In Vartan Gregorian's work as president of Carnegie Corporation of New York, he helped make the world a better place, supporting humanitarian causes and yes, public television, including this program.

I will remember his sage advice and friendship and particularly his irrepressible joy.

Anyone that knew Vartan couldn't help but be dazzled by him.

I miss you, dude.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by...