themselves. so much of the money is spent on providing security for the foreign presence and the organization and the bureaucrats to pay the salary of consultants much of the resources and the services that are utilized in afghanistan are outsourced and therefore don't provide opportunity and in plant for the afghans themselves, and of course, much of the money bypasses the afghan government itself kind of reinforcing the image of the government as sort of being a bystander and i think those are all issues that have to be addressed. but i am going to defer to my other colleagues for more on the issue. ..

failure to coordinate aid has fed into the corruption within the afghan institution. i think first is developing a robust -- not being afraid of butting a robust set of conditions for aid either through an ims program or u.s. or multi-lateral agreement. central to that would be insisting on transparency, particularly in licensing and revenue as >> the afghan budget is the policy coordination mechanism on the ground. i think we're making a mistake when we ask the u.n. to coordinate. the u.n. cannot coordinate the afghan budget, and we need a road map for the other institution. and then i think we have got a coordination mechanism, it's the arts, the afghan reconstruction trust fund which is acting as a dual key system on the flow of

money. and using that or developing a parallel type of trust fund for u.s. resources would be essential. and then agencies or private companies are contracted, then i think we need to apply the same set of robust requests for transparency and accountability which to date haven't been in place. >> thank you very much. ambassador crocker, do you have anything you want to add to that? >> no, ma'am. >> okay. thank you both for your service as well. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you you -- and the ranking member for holding these hearings right now. and i think this decision that's going to be made right now is one of the most important we're going to be dealing with in the senate where we're dealing with a lot of important decisions and bringing the light to this thing and having the panels we did, they've been excellent. just the right people.

so i cannot commend you enough for doing this. i want to thank everybody on the panel. i just have a few questions. one, it's been mentioned by a number of senators and also in the popular press that the somalia raid is kind of a model for u.s. operations in afghanistan. is it? >> thank you, senator. complex question. i'm not sure it's a model. i think it's a tool, and i think it has already been going on in afghanistan over the past several years through the u.s. counterterrorism forces. not so much the nato counterinsurgent capability. with significant results. but again, with a hierarchy that's amorphous, cells operating as opposed to a vertical hierarchy. it's very difficult to make

long-term gains because someone always steps up. however, it is an ongoing, day-to-day operation done very precisely. it's what you don't hear that's probably more important than what you hear. >> great. anyone else? >> senator, i think that's a very important question that certainly is beyond my expertise to adequately answer. but it is, i think, worth posing to those in the administration more qualified. my sense is that the somalian model, if you will, probably cannot be successfully replicated in afghanistan. i think the dynamics there are more complex. i also think, frankly, that given that the commander in afghanistan, general mccrystal, is perhaps the most

capable special operations commander that this country has ever produced, that if he thought it could be done that way, i think we'd be seeing different sets of recommendations. >> great, thank you. there's a discussion about expediting the elections senator wicker raised. i think, obviously, that would be key to everyone. does anyone on the panel, i met with abdullah abdullah two months ago. there's a chance he might throw in with karzai, i think it's remote. but just for the sake of this, can anyone consider a way to expedite this election without some sort of coalition government? >> senator, that's a very important question. i'm not sure there's a way to expedite it. i think there will be a tendency to allow the ecc to complete its investigations and then make a determination on whether the

process has met the standards of a fair enough election. i think the only thing that could bring it to a resolution earlier would be the coming together within the afghan political elite of enough of the candidates that potentially others within the political elite who would agree to form a type of unity government. >> i mean, i think it's key that, i mean, this is the worst possible time for this to happen. so if anybody comes up with any ideas, i hear a lot of talk about expediting, but i've not heard a single person give us a way to get to where we have to, so if you come up with anything, i'd very much appreciate it. senator lugar's raised this a number of times, and it's really important. one of the problems is recruiting people. how do we improve recruitment of civil and foreign service officers to move away from -- as we move away from reliance on contractors? >> senator, if i could just take one element of that drawing from

my experience in iraq, we need more efficient mechanisms in government to be able to respond to complex contingencies like iraq and afghanistan. simply put, there are not enough people period, not enough people with the skill sets that are required in these contingencies within the foreign service either state or usaid. it requires a process to bring in able talent from other agencies and from the private sector. and that's still -- that still, frankly, does not work very well. it's called a 31-61 process, and i can tell you that it's painful in the extreme to make that work, work quickly getting the right people in the right places. i know that the administration

has put more emphasis on building up what's called scrs within the state department as means of providing a civilian reserve, if you will. i would applaud that, but a great deal more needs to be done to put in place the structures that will allow an administration to identify and quickly bring to the field the numbers and the skill sets that similarly do not exist -- simply do not exist within the established agencies. >> i think it's important you bring out the importance of this. this is really key. if we're going to be fighting wars of counterinsurgency in the future, we just kind of glaze over this. we're having a hard time in afghanistan, but planning down the road is really, really important. can i just ask you another question? two things, one is how -- we're trying to get the taliban to

come over kind of like we did with the sons of iraq in anbar province. would you comment on whether you think that's possible in afghanistan? >> i do think it's possible. again, i'm not in a position to comment with any detail on the dynamics there. but once again i think we've got the right people in this fight, both general mccrystal, of course, with his substantial experience in afghanistan and in iraq where i had the privilege of serving with him, and then general petraeus in many respects the architect of the awakening strategy. of course now has oversight of both campaigns. so i have a high level of confidence that we do have the people engaged on this that can figure out what can be done and how to do it. all of that said and, again, my

colleagues dr. lockhart and dr. hosseini are far more qualified to speak to it. it is, it's going to be a very different and more difficult process. the, the sunni insurgency in iraq was not deeply rooted in time or in ideology. in the taliban, of course, are both. >> thank you very much, and i want to tell you i think everyone agrees that our success in iraq was based on the people we had there. obviously, one of the very, very best people was you and the people we have in afghanistan, general mccrystal, eikenberry, rodriguez, crystal, we've got a good team over there too. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. let me follow up on a few things, if i can. the, sort of a parallel to a

couple of questions that senator kaufman was asking, but on the issue of the taliban which is central to this -- actually before i get to that i want to ask you, general craddock, because it's understanding to the taliban, as supreme allied commander, you were commanding nato forces, and you're very familiar with the tensions within that bloc at this point. my sense is that we are losing our allies' enthusiasm for this effort and that a number of them -- i won't go into the details here -- but have been very reluctant all along to engage. their troops don't engage. and looking to them for additional support here, i mean, i think essentially we're kind of going to be on our own here, and i think we've got to -- you know, is that a fair assessment? >> senator, i think that's a fair assessment from a military perspective. i would agree there is unequal

burden sharing among the alliance with regards to those who will and those who won't. i do think, however, there's opportunity with nato allies to ask for trainers in areas where it may not be as risky, and they may have some political viability. i think they should be asked for civilian surge capability. there's plenty of that in europe, and if you knock down the wall between nato and e.u., you might be able to access a lot of that capability that we need there. >> well, i'd like to examine -- that's a good thought there, but i want to exam this attitude -- examine this attitude a little bit. do they know something that we don't know? >> well, i can't speak for them. in terms of what they know. >> well, but you've had these conversations. i've had these conversations, and you have too. there is an attitudinal difference about the threat. there's a threat definition difference, isn't there? >> indeed. >> but isn't that important for us to understand? >> well, i think it's been discussed here. in europe terrorism is viewed as

a police issue when it's visited upon their people. and you deal with it then as opposed to stopping it before it gets into your country. so the military generally does not deal with terrorism to the extent that we do here because of the attacks. >> but i think their perception goes actually deeper than that. i think there's a different sense of sort of how you manage this over a period of time. you're nodding your head, ms. lockhart. do you want to share your perception then? your body language got you in trouble here. [laughter] >> i think twofold. i would agree that there is absolutely a waning enthusiasm amongst public opinion in europe. i think that's partly because there has yet to be a credible articulation of exactly what the strategy is going to be and particularly the failures in hell monday is affecting the

public debate because there was not a credible articulation of a governmental strategy. that remaines open, and i do peeve the public -- believe the public opinion could be reconvinced if that strategy is to be articulated because -- >> your strategy, your strategy involves a pretty significant commitment of resources, investment personnel, civilians, i mean, it really is a nation-building strategy. >> it is, and i believe that there will be more appetite in europe and other countries for engagement on training as general craddock articulated and on the civilian surge elements particularly in areas like capacity building and economic investment. so a sensible division of labor going forwards maybe to look for support from allies particularly in europe and japan for that civilian type of assistance recognizing that the u.s. will continue to bear the brunt --

>> and, general craddock, we're going to get some folks who are hopefully nor operational with respect -- more operational with respect to afghanistan as we go down the road here, but from a military perspective in order to do the kinds of things that ms. lockhart and others have talked about doing in building the governance, the capacity building and so forth, we've got to have some security. but is it possible to do the security without the kind of current engagement and civilian collateral deaths that we currently have? or is that -- are the insurgents always capable of guaranteeing that you have that even if you don't want it? and is that a great danger here? >> it's my judgment that in irregular warfare and given what we know about the insurgents that they were always capable of arranging that situation. i can give you chapter and verse over and over again of

operations and targeting that look fine but didn't turn out that way for a myriad of reasons. but again, the use of civilians as shields is very difficult to combat. now, having said that i think we can continue to work to minimize. i think that the tactical guidance put into place by general mccrystal recently has gone a long way and will continue to do that to minimize that pushback. if i may, a point that ms. lockhart raised. the british strategy in hell helmand, the strategy here or there, the u.s. strategy in pack tee ca, one of the problems we face is arrangement of nato. nations view their own provinces as a fiefdom or ponces as the case the u.s. has a regional command, so they deal with that at the expense of dealing with a country as a whole, and it has caused us problems over time. >> i agree with that. i think one of the most significant problems has been

the absence for almost eight years of a unified command and a unified strategy. in fact, and people need to understand this, this is important as we think about afghanistan, we have traveled this journey for almost seven years without a strategy. there was sort of a, you know, just a continuing at the expense of iraq. and i think most people have agreed that troops were diverted, resources were deserted, focus was diverted, so it has only been in these last months that people have begun to really hone in and say, how do you adjust? the challenge as i wrote back last february is the clock ticking. the amount of time that's been lost to the corruption, to the, you know, to the other things and can you make it up? i want to come back to that for a moment, ambassador crocker, if i k. with respect to the taliban you made a very per spentive observation and answer to senator kaufman's question, and you noted the historical, cultural depth of the taliban

versus the insurgency in iraq. there are different -- however, we keep hearing about sort of different shades of taliban. and can you share with us perhaps, you know, to what degree can the taliban be sort of divided in a way here? can you, is there a diplomatic/civilian ability to reach out to them and, in fact, give them something that they want more than being taliban? and, therefore, isolating the really hard core taliban, or are we dealing with a monolithic entity? >> mr. chairman, i would make a few observations on the methodology, if you will, and then perhaps dr. hosseini, dr. lockhart would have some comments more on the nature of the taliban as they see it because that's not my, not my area of expertise.

the principle we followed in iraq was exactly what you suggest, it was talking to anyone who would talk to us without regard to what they may have done to us in the past. trying to find splits, fish sures, differences of view, people who would be us susceptie to whatever -- [inaudible] we might offer to break up an insurgency, if you will, to pull people either to our side or at least into the neutral zone. and we did that without spending a tremendous amount of time trying to figure out what ideological persuasion might exist here or there. we just kind of went at it, you know, the word, we got the word out that we're open for discussion. it seems to me that a similar

approach has great potential also in afghanistan because the tall ban is not -- taliban is not a monolithic organization. they are not card-carrying members. there have been to be levels of commitment, so it's by seeking ways to engage, to discuss direct, indirect that i think we'll find what the limits are of shrinking an adversary down to the smallest possible number of irreconcilables as we put it in terms of iraq. you want to reduce the number of people who absolutely have to be killed to the smallest number possible, and i think, again, the same methodology will work in afghanistan of -- but my colleagues would be far more knowledgeable on the nature of what we're dealing with there.

>> do you want to comment, either of you, before i -- just quickly? i want to try to -- >> um, sure. i agree with the ambassador. the taliban are not monolithic movement if they ever were. the term taliban now refers to a cluster of different groups that more or less answer to different leadership. so part of the challenge of, and again i'm sort of out of my element here, but just part of the challenge of negotiating these people is that there's no -- in the absence of clear leadership structure, it is difficult to determine who exactly you speak to. and in addition at the present time it seems to me the taliban have no incentive really to negotiate because the perception is that they've managed to frustrate the coalition. in addition, the united states would likely ask the taliban to

sever their ties to the more radical groups like al-qaeda and they may be reluctant to do that, and the taliban in exchange may say to the afghan government they will negotiate, but we need the foreigners to leave the country and, again, these are very difficult and challenging preconditions. that said, i think that there's an opportunity to at least engage some of the more so-called moderate members of the taliban. these would be the more afghan, the more reconcilable elements. if there's a tradition in afghanistan, it's switching allegiances. we saw that over and over again during the civil war in afghanistan, and if anything, afghans are a pragmatic people. and if certain elements of at least the afghan movement can be negotiated, can be convinced that it's in their self-interest and their pragmatic interests to come over to the other side, they may be interested in doing that. but i will say that on my recent

trip to afghanistan i spoke to a lot of people on the street, and my sense is that by and large a lot of people although they don't feel any necessarily kinship with the taliban, they are in favor of some kind of negotiate between the west and the taliban. >> thank you. senator lugar, do you have any more questions? senator casey? >> mr. chairman, at the risk of -- i know we have to move on, but i felt guilty that i had not asked the doctor and a general a question. so at the risk of delaying things, just two quick questions. one is, doctor, with the -- first of all, i want to commend your work across the world. we had -- [inaudible] we had hearings at the subcommittee level on refugees in both iraq and pakistan, and i was very interested in what you said about the refugee challenge

in afghanistan. i guess i'd ask you this question, what's the short-term or the near-term challenge with regard to this question of -- i guess refer to it as reintegration? first, and then second, what is the, what is the likelihood that there's going to be a dramatic increase in the number of refugees in afghanistan which becomes in all refugee situations, and i saw this firsthand -- not the problems with it, but just a good example of what's happening on the ground in pakistan when we visited a camp there. internally-displaced people were, seemed to be for the most part treated well and seemed to be moving back to their communities. but if it doesn't go well, you have both the humanitarian and a security problem. but i guess i'd ask you first of all on the, your sense of the

increase that may occur in afghanistan in terms of the number of refugees and, secondly, the challenge of reinte gaition. >> if i could just -- before you answer i need to go down to the finance committee, but i just want to thank the panel for your contributions today. it's been very, very helpful. we have a distance to go yet, but i think weaver beginning to shed -- we're beginning to shed some height on it, and we're very grateful for you taking the time today. whoever wants to be the last questioner, just close it out. thanks. >> thank you, chairman kerry. >> reintegration of afghan refugees continues to be a very difficult challenge. and to put it in perspective, let's remember that afghanistan even in its heyday ranks at or very near the bottom of the global index for human development. now, put that country through 30 years of successive civil

conflict that saw the destruction of virtually every meaningful -- i would propose to you that if we increased the population of a developed nation like france or the u.k. by 20 percent, how would they be able to handle it? frankly, it would be chaotic. but in afghanistan the lack of effective governance has allowed that to happen, and so what we're seeing in afghanistan in regards to refugee reintegration is the stresses and strains of a government that is sort of more or less buckling under the strain of absorbing the millions of people who have come back. so for the refugees who have come back, reintegration in afghanistan is a serious challenge. for some they have more or less been able to resume their lives in a relatively settled fashion. but for many refugees, they continue to face the lack of

basic social services. foremost among those, land, shelter, jobs and then water, education and access to health facilities. i believe that the era of spontaneous, voluntary return is over. we saw five million people coming from, since 2002. last year 280,000 afghans returned home. this year a fraction of that, only 50,000. the reasons for that have to do partly with the low absorption capacity in afghanistan, partly with security particularly the refugees who are in pakistan originate from the pashtun belt and who have concerns about returning to the place of origin where the insurgency activity is very strong. part of it has to do with lack of employment opportunity. this is particularly the case with the refugees in iran who have relatively better living conditions and where there's any

wrong they've been able to make a life for themselves. so 2.6 million afghans still remain abroad. 1.6 million in pakistan and one million in iran, and it is far from clear whether or if they will return from afghanistan. as i said -- to afghanistan. as i said earlier, 80 percent of those refugees who remain abroad have lived there for more than 20 years. they no longer feel like afghans, many of them, and they feel no personal kinship with afghanistan, they don't dress like afghans, they don't speak like afghans, and the idea of uprooting their lives and resettling to a remote region in the country is not particularly attractive to them, so it's a major challenge for the government of afghanistan and the governments of pakistan but particularly with iran to negotiate and to come to a resolution as to the ultimate fate of the refugees. as far as the increased number of refugeeses, we are seeing far more displacement than we were a few years ago. we are now, we have over a

quarter of a million afghans who are displaced. the reasons for displacement within afghanistan have to do partially with the conflict particularly in the south and the southeast where, again, the insurgency is strong. but part of it has to do, also, with land dispute, with lack of economic opportunity and so on and so forth. so for the foreseeable future i think this will be a challenge. >> one of the more interesting parts of the challenge or the results i should say in pakistan was you had, you had about 80 percent of the internally-displaced people who were displaced because of the, the military conflict in places like the valley and others, other places. you had about 90 percent of those -- 80 percent of those internally-displaced people go into homes. people would take them in based upon both, i think, pashtun tradition and the welcoming way that they bring people into their homes and secondly because of the experience of the 2005

earthquake. so you had -- of the two million plus in pakistan who were displaced, 80 percent of them were brought into homes, so maybe the challenge there was a little different than it might be in other places including afghanistan. but i know we don't have a lot more time but, general, the last question then we'll wrap up, and you may not have an opinion about this yet because it's about 24 hours as we do in washington, we want opinions on something that's bauer ri out -- barely out. but the administration has put forth a draft or at least a starting point on metrics, what they call evaluating progress with regard to afghanistan both military and nonmilitary. i know you may not have had a chance to review it yet, but what's your sense -- could have an opinion on what they've produced and if not, what's your sense of how we should go about that? because we need people that have the kind of experience you have to weigh in on what metrics are

valid, what metrics are ones that we should use, and we have to have -- i believe we, meaning the congress and the administration both, have to give a lot of frequent, frequent, frequent reporting on progress if we want to sustain support for any kind of an effort. >> thank you, senator. i have not seen the metrics. i know that it's been a work in progress for some time. i am a strong supporter of metrics. what we have done to date, in my judgment, has been measure performance. how many miles or kilometers of road, how many children are in school, how many vaccinations, but we haven't measured the effect of the performance. and these metrics have to go to the next step. what is working? how do we measure it? do we measure what we can measure? because it's easy to measure even though not relevant, or do we measure what's important to determine the effect? and then reenforce success, stop failure and find something else. nato has struggled with this.

they're still working on it. the forces are working on metrics. i think we need to pull together some good analytical minds and determine, critically determine what it is we'll focus on both in security, governance and just development process. they all lead over into each other's field. you can't get one without the other. so i will be looking for this closely. i think that it will behoove us in the coming very near term here to come to grips with this. the hard part will be going out, getting the data and then the critical objective analysis. >> i hope all four of you will weigh in on that as time goes by. we need your help. thanks very much. this hearing is adjourned unless senator kaufman has something else. we're all set? hearing adjourned. [laughter]

[inaudible conversations] >> more now about afghanistan from the senate floor. comments from pennsylvania senator arlen specter. this is 20 minutes. >> senator from pennsylvania. >> madam president, i have sought recognition to comment about u.s. policy in afghanistan. during the course of the august recess and, of course, my customary practice i traveled to pennsylvania's 67 counties to take the pulse of my constituents. and while there are many problems, there was considerable concern about what our policy is going to be in afghanistan. i note that at this time according to yesterday's new york times there have been 821 american service members killed

in afghanistan, some 189 billion dollars has been appropriated for afghanistan. by the end of this year, there will be 68,000 military personnel and an additional 38,000 nato troops from other countries in afghanistan. i ask consent that an extensive floor statement be included in the text of the congressional record at the conclusion of my statement. >> without objection. >> and i intend now to summarize the substance of my concerns. the approach on our policy has been outlined in testimony earlier this week by admiral michael mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in these

two statements. our policy, quote, is to deny sanctuary to al-qaeda and the taliban now and to generate a stable and secure afghanistan capable of denying al-qaeda a return after the withdrawal of our combat forces and while we sustain partnership and commitment to political and economic development in that nation. admiral mullen told the committee, quote, a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces. without question more time and more commitment to the protection of the afghan people and to the development of good government. while i think it is laudable to want to protect the afghan people and to provide good governance there, it is my view that that is not a sufficient

national interest for the united states to put our troops at risk or to expend substantial additional sums there. the principle question as i see it is whether afghanistan is indispensable to be secured to prevent al-qaeda from watching another attack against the united states. if that is the purpose and that is the necessity, then we must undertake anything, whatever it costs, to stop al-qaeda from again attacking the united states. but i believe that there are a series of questions which have to be answered before we can assess whether that is an indispensable part of u.s. policy. and toward that end i have written to the secretary of defense, secretary of state, the trial courter of -- directer of

national intelligence and the directer of the central intelligence agency on a series of questions which i think require answers before we can make an informed judgment as to whether the expenditures in afghanistan are in our specific and key national interests. and these are the questions which i have posed for these leaders. what are the prospects for military success in afghanistan? against al-qaeda and the taliban? what will the requirements be in the next year as to additional u.s. troops and the cost of our involvement in afghanistan in? what may we reasonably expect nato or other allies to contribute in troops and dollars to our efforts in afghanistan?

what are the areas around the world that are open to al-qaeda has potential bases for another attack on the united states? what will be done besides military action such as nation building, stabilizing a developing afghanistan so that they will be prepared to handle their own prop problems so that we could withdraw? what assistance can we reasonably expect from pakistan in fighting al-qaeda and the taliban and stopping both from seeking refuge by moving in and out of pakistan? how does the questionable legitimacy of president karzai's status as a result of allegations or proof of election fraud impact on our ability to succeed in afghanistan? how does the illegal drug trafficking and alleged involvement of high-ranking officials in the karzai government in such drug trafficking impact on our efforts in afghanistan?

what does u.s. intelligence show as to any possible plans bilal al qaeda to attack the united states or anyone else? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether india poses a real threat to attack pakistan? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether pakistan poses a real threat to attack india? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether pakistan could reasonably devote additional military force to assist us in the fight against the taliban? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether the government of pakistan or influential officials in the pakistani government would consider negotiating with india for reducing nuclear weapons or other confidence-building measures to diffuse the tension with india if actively encouraged to do so by the united states?

what does united states intelligence show as to whether the government of india or some influential officials in the indian government would consider negotiating with pakistan or reducing nuclear weapons or other confidence-building measures to diffuse the tension with pakistan if actively encounselorred by the -- encouraged by the united states to do so? we have learned a bitter lesson from iraq, that we do not have answers to important questions in formulating our policy there. had we known that saddam hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, i think the united states would not have gone into iraq. these questions were posed by me when we had the debate on the resolution for authorizing the use of force on october 7, 2002.

i said the following: what was the extent of saddam hussein's control over weapons of maas destruction? mass destruction? what would it cost by way of casualties to topple saddam hussein? what would be the consequences in iraq? who would govern after saddam was toppled? what would happen in the region, the impact on the arab world and the impact on israel? close quote. the president as commander in chief as we all know has primary responsibility to conduct war, but the constitution vests in the congress the sole authority to declare war. regrettably, the congressional authority and responsibility has been dissipated with what we have seen in korea and in vietnam and in the authorizations for the use of force in iraq in both 2001 and

in -- in the two incursions. into iraq. we do not have the authority under separation of powers to delegate that authority, and had we asked the tough questions and had we gotten correct, honest, accurate answers it would have been a great help to president george w. bush in formulating policy as to iraq. and i think now it would be a great help to president barack obama for the united states congress to exercise our persistence and finding correct answers to these kinds of tough questions. we have a situation with

pakistan today which gives great pause. the united states has advanced $15.5 billion to pakistan since 9/11, some $10.5 billion of that money has gone for security. and there is a real question as to whether we have gotten our money's worth. the comments from "the new york times" on december 24th raised these issues: money which has been expended by the united states in pakistan has been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter india, not al-qaeda or the taliban. the united states has paid tens of millions of dollars to inflated pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and

other cause. dr. anthony courtman of the center for strategic services for strategic and international studies wrote on april 10th of this year, quote, far too much of a military force the past u.s. aid to pakistan never was used to help fight the taliban or al-qaeda or can accounted fo. future aid should clearly be tied to clear hi-defined goals and full accounting for the money. "the new york times" on august 30th of this year pointed out, quote, the accusations have been made of pakistan illegally modifying american-made missiles to expand its capability to strike land targets, a potential threat to india.

the questions which have been posed in the series of letters which i have outlined go to the issue as to whether india poses a threat to pakistan. hard for me to comment, to contemplate that that is a really curious problem, but we ought to be informed. and we ought to be putting our efforts to seeing if we could not broker a peace treaty between india and pakistan which would enable us to get really substantial help from pakistan in our fight against the taliban. in 1995 when i was chairman of the intelligence committee, senator brown of colorado and i visited india and pakistan. when we were in india, we went with prime minister rau who brought up the subject of a

potential nuclear confrontation between india and pakistan and said that he would like to see the subcontinent nuclear-free. he knew that we were enroute to pakistan to see prime minister benazir bhutto, and he asked us to take up the subject with her which she did. as a result, i wrote the following letter to president clinton the day after we'd left india, and i think it is worth reading in full be. august 28, 1995, dear mr. president. i think it important to call to your personal attention the substance of meetings which senator hank brown and i had in the last two days with indian prime minister rau and pakistan prime minister benazir bhutto. prime minister rau stated that he would be very interested in negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any nuclear

weapons on the subcontinent within 10 or 15 years including renouncing first use of such weapons. his interest in such negotiations with pakistan would cover bilateral talks or regional conference which would include the united states, china and russia in addition to india and pakistan. when we asked prime minister bhutto whether she had last -- when she had last talked to prime minister rau, she said she had had no conversations with him during her tenure as prime minister. prime minister bhutto did say that she had initiated a contact through an intermediary, but that was terminated when a new controversy arose between pakistan and india. from our conversations with prime minister rau and prime minister bhutto, it is my sense that both would be very receptive to discussions initiated and brokered by the united states as to nuclear

weapons and also delivering missile systems. i am dictating this letter to you by telephone from damascus so that you will have it at your earliest convenience. i'm also telefaxing a copy to secretary of state warren christopher. in my letter to secretary of state clinton which i sent her last week, i asked her what efforts have been made to broker such a peace treaty between india and pakistan and sent on to her a copy of the letter which i had written to president clinton. if we could ease the tension between those two countries, if we could persuade pakistan that india does not pose a threat so that pakistan would not have their martial, their forces

along the indian border but instead aid the united states in our fight against taliban, it would be a very different proposition. the suggestion has been made now to extend $7 and a half billion in additional funding to pakistan. seems to me that it is not a good use of our money if it is to follow the same trail as the $10 and a half billion which we have expended in the immediate past. if we can get the assistance from pakistan in finding taliban, it would be one thing. if we can be sure that the money was used for the intended purpose and not diverted for the other purposes as it appears the other $10 and a half billion was, it would be a very, very different picture.

in sum, it seemses to me -- seems to me that before we ought to commit additional troops to afghanistan, it ought to be a matter of paramount importance, really indispensable as a matter of stopping another attack bilal al qaeda. but if al-qaeda can organize in some other spot, the issues raised by my questions, it would bear heavily on what our policy in afghanistan should be. madam president, in addition to the full text of my statement being included in the record, i ask consent that copies of my letters to secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of defense robert gates, cia directer and the directer of national intelligence, dennis blair, all be included in the record. >> without objection. >> i thank the chair and yield

the floor.

>> in 1971 as a new york times reporter, neil sheehan obtained the top secret pentagon papers. eighteen years later, still writing about the vietnam war, he won the pulitzer prize for "a bright, shining lie." this weekend he'll discuss his latest, "a fiery peace in a cold war," on the nuclear arms race. >> president obama has announced plans to scrap construction of a missile defense system in the czech republic in poland. the president says the decision is based on potential missile threats from iran. over the next 40 minutes you'll hear from the president, defense secretary gates, and republican reaction to the announcement. >> good morning. as commander in chief, i'm committed to doing everything in my power to advance our national security. that includes strengthening our defenses against any and all threats to our people, our

troops and our friends and allies around the world. and one of those threats is the danger posed by ballistic missiles. as i said during the campaign, president bush was right that iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat. that's why i'm committed to deploying strong missile defense systems which are adaptable to the threats of the 21st century. the best way to responsibly advance our security and the security of our allies is to deploy a missile defense system that best responds to the threats that we face and that utilizes technology that is both proven and cost effective. in keeping with that commitment and a congressionally-mandated review, i ordered a comprehensive assessment of our missile defense program in europe. and after an extensive process i have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs

of staff to strengthen america's defenses against ballistic missile attack. this new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 european missile defense program. this decision was guided by two principle factors. first, we have updated our intelligence assessment of iran's missile programs which emphasizes the threat posed by iran's short and medium-range missiles which are capable of reaching europe. there's no substitute for iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program, and we along with our allies and partners will continue to pursue strong diplomacy to insure that iran loves up to these international obligations. but this new program will best address the threats posed by the

ongoing ballistic defense programs. second, we have made specific and proven advances in our missile defense technology, particularly with regard to land and sea-based interceptors and the sensors that support them. our new approach will, therefore, deploy technologies that are proven and cost effective, and to counter the current threat and do so sooner than the previous program. because our approach will be fazed and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve. to put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of american forces and america's allies. it is more comprehensive than the previous program, it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the u.s. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats. and it insures and enhances the

protection of all our nato allies. now, this approach is also consistent with nato missile, nato's missile defense efforts and provides opportunities for enhanced international collaboration going forward. we will continue to work cooperatively with our close friends and allies, the czech republic and poland, who had agreed to host elements of the previous program. i've spoken to the prime ministers of both the czech republic and poland about this decision and reaffirmed our deep and close ties. together we are committed to a broad range of cooperative efforts to strengthen our collective defense, and we are bound by the solemn commitment that nato's article 5, that an attack on one is an attack on all. we've also repeatedly made clear to russia that its concerns about our previous missile defense programs were entirely unfounded. our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by iran's ballistic missile

program, and that continues to be our focus and the basis for the program that we're announcing today. in confronting that threat, we welcome russians' cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests even as we continue to, we continue our shared efforts to end iran's illicit nuclear program. now, going forward my administration will continue to consult closely with congress and with our allies as we deploy this system, and we will rigorously evaluate both the threat posed by ballistic missiles and the technology that we are developing to counter it. i'm confident that with the steps we've taken today we have strengthened america's national security and enhanced our capacity to confront 21st century threats. thank you very much, everything. everybody. >> defense secretary robert gates briefed reporters on the details of the administration's

missile defense plan for a little less than 10 minutes. >> morning. first, before starting on today's announcement i'd like to acknowledge the loss of six italian soldiers and a number of civilians in a bombing attack in kabul. our condolences go out to the families of those killed and the italian and afghan people. this week the president on recommendation and advice of our senior military leadership decided to change the architecture of our ballistic missile defense in europe, a change i believe will enhance our ability to respond to the most immediate threats to the continent as well as future threats. first, some background. on december 27, 2006, i recommended that president bush initiate a europe-based missile

defense system that would put an advanced radar in the czech republic and ten ground-based interceptors in poland. at the time this was considered the best way to protect the united states and our european allies from the growing threat posed by iran's development of longer-range ballistic missiles. since then two important developments have prompted a reassessment of our approach in europe. first, a change in our intelligence community's 2006 view of the iranian threat. the intelligence community now assesses that the threat from iran's short and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected. ..

enemy missiles. this allows us to deploy a distributed sensor network rather than single fixed site like the kind slated for the czech republic enabling greater survivability and adaptability we have also improved the standard missile three, the sm-3, which had eight successful flight tests since 2007. these tests have demonstrated

the sm-3's capability and have given confidence in the system and its future. based on these factors, we have now the opportunity to deploy new sensors and interceptors in northern and southern europe that near-term can provide missile defense coverage against more immediate threats from iran and others. in the initial stage we will deploy interceptors that provide the flexibility to move interceptors from one region to another if needed. the second phase, about 2015, will involve fielding up to read it land-based sm-3's. consultations have begun with allies starting with poland and the czech republic about hosting a land-based version of the sm-3 and other components of the system. facing interceptors on land will provide additional coverage and save costs compared to a pure lacy based approach.

overtime this architecture is designed to continually incorporate new and effective technologies as well as more interceptors. expanding the range of coverage, improving the ability to knock down multiple targets and increasing the survivability of the overall system. this approach also provides greater flexibility to adapt to developing threats involving technologies. for example all loewi iranian long-range missile threat is not as immediate as we previously thought, this system will allow us to incorporate future defensive capabilities against such threats as they develop. perhaps most important though the kitfield initial elements of the system to protect forces in europe and our allies roughly six to seven years earlier than the previous plan. a fact made more relevant by continued delays in the czech and polish ratification process these that have caused repeated slips in the time line. i would also no plans to cover

most of europe and add to the defense of the u.s. homeland will continue on about the same schedule as before. as the president has said very clearly as long as the eye iranian threat persists, we will pursue proven and cost effective defenses. today the department of defense is briefing the congress and nato allies about this plan. one of our guiding principles for missile defense remains the involvement and support our allies and partners. we will continue to rely on our allies and work with them to develop a system that most effectively defend against very real and growing threats. those who say we are scrapping missile defense in europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing. the security of europe has been a vital national interest of the united states for my entire career. the circumstances, borders and threats may have changed.

but that commitment continues. i believe this new approach provides a better missile defense capability for the forces in europe, for our european allies and eventually for our homeland than the program i recommended almost three years ago to read it is more adapted to the threat we see developing and takes advantage of new cable to the eckert technical capabilities house republicans spoke against the administration's proposed plan to scrap construction of missile defense systems in the czech republic and poland. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. good afternoon. thank you. we are upset with what the administration has announced this morning or is announcing today on the ballistic missile

defense. announces terminating the european missile defense system, the ten interceptor's plan for deployment in poland and later in the czech republic. we see the administration's national security policy emerge. it undercuts allies and to iran and north korea. this unilateral decision underlines allies specifically the polls and the czech. they've provided steadfast support to the u.s. and afghanistan. the administration is capitulating to ration demand rewarding russia for its divisive policies and actions despite the administration's adamant statements that it wasn't linking the follow-up treaty with missile defense on the eve of negotiations they give russia what they wanted. partly it seems to me the way to start a negotiation.

contrary to the intelligence and evidence reports that indicated growing iranian threat. the obama administration claims the threat is now downgraded. we have seen nothing to indicate any downgrade of the threat. iranian behavior on the past year clearly demonstrates their intent and capability to develop long-range missiles. obama is clearly reneged on his pledge made in prague that he would move forward with european missile defense as long as the threat from iran exists. the u.s. and europe will be bald orval. iran now has an open invitation to focus on long-range missile development which is already doing. this decision didn't appear to be made on the basis of cost effectiveness grounds according to the 2008 and attended study required by the democrats, the czech and will plans are the most cost-effective.

with $1.2 billion cut and missile defense in the recent past defense budget, the administration's program investments do not match its policy. will we see necessary missile defense investments in while the administration has announced the decision today the congress has an important role, too. we expect to hold comprehensive hearings on this so-called downgrading of the iranian threat as we move forward in the conference on the nda we will continue to push for and find missile defense capabilities that will protect both europe and the u.s.. i forgot to mention i am buck mckeon, have with us and will welcome him now, eric cantor. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. the safety and security of this

country is of obviously the utmost importance for what goes on in this building and in this town. washington's ability to guarantee the safety of american citizens is premised on many things. but first and foremost, consistency and commitment to our military and to our posture vis-a-vis allies and enemies as buck indicated the sudden turnaround, the sudden release apparently of new intelligence information that has not come the way of the hill is somewhat puzzling to say the least. the congress has received briefings on intelligence about the threat iran poses to u.s. interest as well as the united states itself on our home land. so we are free concerned about what seems to be a sudden turnaround and shift in terms of analysis of the intelligence that we've received and we await

the answer is associated with that turn around from the administration. but even more than that, i am very troubled by some reported statements of the vice president. i am hopeful that the reports misquoted the vice president, but essentially vice president biden said he was much less concerned about iran because iran did not have the potential capacity to launch a missile at the united states. to me, implicit in this statement is that we should not necessarily concern ourselves with the threat to our allies in europe, to our allies in the middle east such as israel with iran's current capability. not to mention the fact there are troops, american troops, men and women in the ground in iraq, afghanistan, with an the ability for the shahab-3 missiles to do

damage in the region. we are here with that concern and reiterate our commitment to our allies that the united states is committed to the defense of our security and their security. >> thank you. now we will hear from mike turner subcommittee ranking member on the missile issue. mike turner from ohio. >> this is an important issue because we are beginning to get a picture of this administration's defense posture and plan for the united states. they have cut missile defense by $1.2 billion of funding and now retreating from the planet of missile defense shield in europe. they've proposed the cut by one-third of the missile defense fields that we have proposed for alaska. in reviewing the president's plan this is what is clear. the president is proposing

reduction and the missile defense capability that would protect both allies and the united states and he is doing so after $1.2 billion cut overall to the missile defense funding. in the plan he has released he is proposing not providing the united states with long-range missile defense protection until 2020. the plan that he's cutting would have protected the united states as early as 2013. and what is all about what the president is proposing is there already is a classified study that was undertaken that our committee had presentations that detailed the cost effective plan to protect both europe, our allies, and our strategic interest and the united states was the plan proposed for the czech republic and the polls. i am asking today secretary gates to release a classified version of the plan. here we have the administration preceding to take down a plan that has already been independently assessed as the

most cost-effective way to protect the united states while they are indicating they are going to pursue another one. but the time line that's important is to remember the president is taking the missile defense protection of this united states from 2013 to 2020 and i don't believe that is acceptable to the american people. thank you. >> thank you, mike. now we will hear from mike pence, conference chairman. >> thanks, buck. i want to thank ranking member mckeon for calling this important press conference and the distinguished members of the kennedy and my colleagues and leadership for stepping forward. only a year since russia invaded georgia with very little global consequence, and 70 years to the day since the soviet union invaded poland the obama administration is continuing a

policy of appeasement at the expense of our allies. history teaches the weakness and appeasement invite aggression against peaceful nations. in advance of direct talks with iran in nation that is publicly ruled out discussions over its own nuclear weapons program, this administration now seems to have chosen of appeasement with russia, a country with deep ties to the dangerous regime in tehran. the first nine months of the obama administration have emboldened dictators across the globe and now increasingly antagonistic russia has been rewarded for bullying and threatening its neighbors. not since the carter administration has america looked so weak on the national stage. house republicans are determined

with the strong leadership represented here on the armed services committee to take a stand for our allies to bring this debate forward and ensure america continues to be a shield for freedom loving people real-world -- are around the world. >> now we will hear from trent franks, a gentleman from arizona member of the armed services committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the main reasons america has become the greatest and the most powerful nation on earth is because across history people have known they could count on us to keep our word. but today's announcement by president canceling the missile defense site in europe fundamentally alters the paradigm. ideally disgraces the nation by openly breaking our word to the loyal and courageous allies in the czech republic and poland.

one of the critically important purposes of the european missile defense site was to counter the very dangerous strategic and tactical the advantage iran could gain by developing a nuclear missile capability. and it's time lines exist now it is highly unlikely that any alternative to the system that was planned will come too late, in the system would come too late to be a significant factor in preventing the nation of iran from developing a nuclear missile capability that would threaten the peace of the free world and the various assistance of nations like israel. additionally the alternative plan that president obama ostensibly places on the table is not only far more expensive, it does not have the capability of protecting the american homeland against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from rogue states from the middle east like iran.

the preeminent responsibility of the president of the united states protect the national security of the united states and i believe president barack obama sections betrayed that responsibility. i am stunned that he does not seem to understand that and i sincerely fear of our children in this generation and future generations may pay a tragic price for the betrayal. >> secretary dietz said under the plan there would be more secure -- [inaudible] >> it replaces a system that -- it is coming to take a while for the long-range ballistic missiles, and what he's saying is this will protect us in the short range but we are not going to look at the long distance capability that they would have come and i think mike hit the

nail on the head. if you move the capability out to 20 instead of 13, that presupposes they can't do anything between now and 20. we know they work closely with north korea and north korea has been sending off missiles and that have long-range capability. they could easily buy one of the missiles and have the capability tomorrow. that is the thing that it just -- it kind of goggles my mind to think that we put everything on hold for those years from 09 to 20, 11 years. mike, you want to -- >> the president put up as the administration's plants says he will not have capability for potential future threats to the united states until 2020. this is their own plan. the plan he scrapping would provide protection by 2013, and it's absolutely absurd for them

to say that this is a diminishing threat. i think everyone in their own homes watching the news understands the increasing threat that iran represents and as the ranking member said, they could always buy this technology and get advanced where we would be lagging behind in deployment. >> one of the things that concerns me is the primary purpose for the european site was to counter the iranians right and part of that strategic effort was to devalue the iran and nuclear program in the first place because they knew that we would be prepared when they were prepared to launch a missile and even be prepared to intercept it. on this timeline for this alternative system the president proposes we will not be prepared to intercept iranian long-range missile so it simply puts no pressure on them and takes away ability to be any factor in

preventing iran from gaining a nuclear capability and that is probably one of the most critically important point site can make. >> you mentioned ndaa. how does today's announcement unpack negotiations on the bill, and last week senator levin mentioned that a bill could be finished by the end of the month. do you think that is realistic as well? >> we have a meeting on the 24th, so i guess anything is possible, but with some of the complications hyoscine in our negotiations so far i would not predict a bill done by the end of the month. that is i think probably a little overly optimistic. they already have in this bill the 1.2 billion cut in the missile defense and that is it didn't go as far as the

announcement today so i don't know if that will complicate, further complicate the conference or not. that remains to be seen. it is a trend that bothers me. we have cut our defense historic plea in this country after the war. after world war i we cut the defense after world war ii we cut the defense after korea. we keep cutting back but to my knowledge we never had the cuts and defense during a war and in fact right now we are fighting to wars that we have in this budget that we have -- that we are dealing with right now. yes? >> this plan what impact the current budget shouldn't be [inaudible] what you just said about the negotiations with is the game plan? is their anything you could do

other than the little bit talking about concerns about this to persuade the proposal today? >> we can win the next election. it concerns me because we are also talking about afghanistan. i read yesterday the president says now we should have a national debate on afghanistan. i thought we had a national debate and it was decided last november and his statements during the campaign indicated that afghanistan was the good war. that we should be back in that war and he said a new policy in march and we put in a new commander and gave the commander 60 days to come out with how he was going to carry out the president's march strategy. that has worked its way through the chain of command to the administration, and we hear now that we need to have a national debate as to where we go on

afghanistan. so you look at cutting back missile defense, what that does to our allies in europe, and what it does in iran. we have seen korea, what they have done, and then we look at russia. we are entering negotiations with them and we've already given what they want before they enter the negotiations. it seems like we are stepping back everywhere, and i have concerns. it seems like the president is totally engaged in health care reform but the national defence, where is he? >> [inaudible] on the issue -- you were saying that in this budget dates apparently said that it would not affect this plan. well, the problem with that, it ought to give everyone pause as to what is this plan because the plan they are scrubbing was for a capability to exist as of

2013. by the white house's website they are saying that phase two which will give capability and short and medium-range missiles by their plan is 2015 intermediate doesn't come into play until 2018 until 2020 and apparently they are going to dig a year before they ask congress for funding for portions of the splendor systems that don't even texas today. so it is a question how the president could at the same time walk away from a system that was going to provide protection, put forward a system, portions don't even exist today and extend out well past another decade so why ask congress for funding and it doesn't show commitment to the other service they are scrapping what do. >> [inaudible] >> we have to get up there to vote but quick -- >> the defense secretary assigned to lead cosigned on this does give you pause about --

>> who appoints the defense -- >> he has had several and epiphanies lately. >> it is the administration. >> does he give you heads up on this? >> i got a call this morning from general cartwright. so no, we haven't had much notice. okay? thank you very much. we need to get back to vote. the ranking member of the armed services committee, senator john mccain also responded to the administration's plan for missile defense and europe. this is ten minutes. >> mr. president, i rise today to express my deep disappointment with the administration's decision to cancel plans fully developing missile defense in eastern europe. this decision calls into

question the security and diplomatic commitment the united states has made to poland and the czech republic. and i believe it has the potential to undermine american leadership in eastern europe. given the strong and a boarding relationships we have forged with the nation since the end of the cold war we should not take steps backward. i fear of the administration's decision will do that when a time we are wary of renewed russian aggression. the at ministrations decisions to abandon the sites come at a time when the u.s. is in the midst of negotiations with russia on reducing strategic nuclear weapons. russia has long opposed the planned missile defense sites in europe and on numerous occasions tried to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear arms with the defensive capabilities

such as missile defense. in fact, president putin on many occasions stated in very belligerent tones his opposition to this agreement that was already made between via united states and poland and the czech republic. the u.s. should reject it russian attempt to further this argument and capitalize on these ongoing negotiations. as ongoing -- as rogue nations including north korea and iran pushed the nuclear envelope and worked tirelessly to develop weapons capable of reaching america and its allies we must aggressively develop the system is necessary to counter such belligerent efforts and enhance the national security, protect the troops abroad and support allies. enhancing missile defense capabilities is an essential component to addressing threats we currently face and expect to face in the future.

as iran works to correct missile capabilities of all ranges the united states must reaffirm its commitment to its allies and develop and deploy e effective missile defense systems. i would like to point out two important factors. the united states of america does not believe that missile defense systems are in any way a threat to any nation. they are defensive in nature, and i believe a key component and factor in ending the cold war. now intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically since january 16. according to eric edelman, the undersecretary of defense for policy undersecretary gates, during the bush administration intelligence reports on the on iranian threat as recently as january of this year were more

troubling than what is being portrayed by the current administration. mr. edelman maintains, quote, may be something really dramatic changed since january 16th, and now in terms of what the iranians are doing with their missile systems, but i don't think so. you know what, i don't think so either. i think the fact is this decision was obviously rushed. polish prime minister according to the news reports was called at midnight. the agreement was made and ratified by these countries after consultation discussions, and a proper process. they were not even notified of this decision. the decision to abandon the missile defense sites in poland and the czech republic came as a

surprise to them. i understand administration officials were on a plane supposedly to her life in poland today. i might add members of congress were also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in a newspaper. i was not informed. i didn't know what, quote, new technology was being put -- was being recommended to be put in place of the agreement, and as short a time ago as august 20, the united states said we are committed to the security of poland and any u.s. facilities located on the territory of the republic of poland. the united states and poland intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation, etc.. we all know the iran and ballistic missile threat is real and growing. we all know that the administration is seeking cooperation and help of the

russians. now we will see. now we will see. why was this agreement rushed into for the abrogation of an agreement? why was the abrogation of this agreement between the united states with poland and the united states of czechoslovakia rescinded in such a dramatic and rushed fashion? we all know that the arena and ballistic missile threat is real and growing. how many times have the, quote, intelligence estimates been wrong dating back to and including the cold war? as many times as they have been right, i tell my colleagues, whether it be their assessment about the war in iraq or whether it be the capabilities of many adversaries including the korean buildup which we have been

consistently wrong. so, poland and the czech republic asked what many at the time perceived and on the popular agreement despite threats from russia both governments recognizing the importance of such defense capability would provide to their citizens and europe as a whole and agree to allow by united states to place ground-based interceptors and poland and midcourse radar site in the czech republic. ortiz country's going to do the next time we want to make an agreement with them, mr. president? in view of the way this decision was made and was announced without -- or shall i say made known to the media before they were even told about it? so it will be a very interesting what we get in return. it sounds like according to christian science monitor global

news block, quote, we see this as a pragmatic decision says pavlov deputy director of the institute of u.s.-canada studies suggesting internal u.s. factors manly account for mr. obama's riss. corker mr. obama's approach is understandable given the economic crisis because this project would have given nothing but trouble. it sounds like moscow has already discounted this concession from washington experts suggest that is because russia's foreign policy is to publish it had been expecting such a decision at least since obama hinted he might give up the scheme during the summit with dmitri medvedev in moscow last july. we had been getting signals since last spring that made it seem almost certain the missile defense plan would be satisfied, said the door editor of russia

and global affairs a leading moscow foreign policy journal. so, mr. president, russians seem to have anticipated this decision. unfortunately, the polish government and the czech republic did not and we were not informed of this decision until after reading about it in the media. it's not the way to do business. i think it sends the wrong signal to the russians and to our fines and allies. and so, there are consequences of every decision. i believe the consequences of this decision may be albeit unintentionally encouraged further belligerence on the part of the russians and distinct lack of confidence on the part

of our friends and allies in the world of the united states and commitment of the allied states of america. i ask unanimous consent articles in "the wall street journal" and the christian science monitor be made a part of the record at this time. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. president, on the yield the floor.

treasuries eckert garate timothy geithner says president obama's financial regulation plan is critical to reducing home mortgage fraud. he and attorney general eric colder spoke to reporters after meeting with state attorneys general. after their comments, which are about five minutes, you will also hear from some of the attorneys general.

>> we had a very important productive meeting with the attorney general, with the secretary of housing and urban development with of the chairman of the ftc with the head of fincen and attorney general from across the country. to highlight the importance of the combined national effort to try to address financial fraud, financial scams we have a financial crisis caused in part by pretty systematic failures of consumer protection across the country some of those occurred in the banking system, some outside of the banking system, and we are committed to trying to do a better job going forward of catching those things earlier and trying to provide better protection. we met today to assess progress on initiative to go after foreclosure scams, loan modifications dams, and you are going to hear in a few minutes

about progress in those areas, but a few important things i want to underscore. we need to move early, preemptively. when you see the first signs of the scam artists start to advertise, start to try to go after people you need to do it in a court made basis because these guys don't respect state borders or national borders. way to do a better job of using all will call it intelligence that we get from consumer complaints of the national level, the state level and the reports for the banking system that are called suspicious activity reports. we want to look at ways of taking this basic model for cooperation and extending it outside the area of mortgage foreclosure scams to the range of practices you see and hear about in the broad debt of the consumer area. and i just want to end by

emphasizing that this is critical to any effective effort to bring about better protection for consumers but we are going to need legislation at the national level to dustin which strong protection for consumers and a forced to become a force more evenly and effectively again not just within banks but outside the banks and that is why the administration has proposed this new authority placed in one entity, consumer protection financial agency with authority to write rules and enforce rules will be a critical part of addressing these things more effectively in the future. let me turn to my colleagues to get a few brief remarks and take questions. attorney general holders. >> thank you mr. secretary. i'm pleased to be with you and secretary donovan, chairman leibovitz and attorneys general to discuss efforts to combat mortgage fraud and protect the american homeowners. today marks another important

step in ongoing state, federal mortgage fraud initiative. in april we announced with our state call weeks multi agency crackdown, targeting foreclosure rescue scams and loan modifications broad. that initiative has been successful but we believe we can and must do more and that is why we have been working hard since april to expand the scope and intensity of joint mortgage fraud enforcement efforts and strengthen and solidified the coordination between states and federal government in this critical area. on the coordination front we have created for state working groups focused on information sharing, criminal enforcement, civil enforcement and civil rights enforcement. these working groups are cheered by a state attorney general and assistant attorney general from the department of justice and in good high level participants from treasury, hud, ftc, fbi and

state banking authorities. the work of these groups is now under way and i am encouraged by the energy, the creativity, and the determination with which all participants, federal and state are attacking this critical problem. we have been busy on the enforcement front as well. as of july 31st of this year, the fbi has more than 2,600 pending mortgage fraud cases under investigation are around the country. this is approximately from 1600 such investigations and 2008. many of these investigations are the result of joint, state, federal and local efforts coordinated through regional mortgage fraud task forces. to take one a sample of a recent successful investigation late last spring we secured federal charges against five individuals in maryland. their participation in a massive mortgage fraud scheme that allegedly promised to pay

homeowners mortgages but in reality left them to fend for themselves after the defendants elaborate ponzi scheme collapsed. now due to the outstanding work of the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that make up the maryland and washington, d.c. task force. these defendants are facing lengthy prison sentences and forfeiture of their ill-gotten gains. a successful investigation such as these tenants reverts to attack mortgage fraud must be and they are concerted and coordinated. working together we can send a clear and straightforward message. if you perpetrate fraud we will find you and charge you and put you in jail. this is a priority for every person that you see sitting about these tables today. i look forward to building up on today's productive meeting and

continuing work to eliminate fraudulent mortgages schemes. >> there is an incredible attempt at the ordination of only among the states but with the federal government. you know a couple decades ago we had found out that the state attorney general's if we work together we could accomplish a lot more for our citizens and that is how the multistate group. we are trying to do this thing with the federal government now. we had a great meeting back in july with the departments and their staff that were here today. we followed up and developed the task force. when a civil enforcement, one is criminal enforcement, one is information sharing and the of various civil rights fair lending and we have chairs on both sides and committees, and we have just recently gone through an agenda of things we could do together. so there is a real attempt to have not only the state's working together but the federal

government working with us. frankly like we have never seen before. we think there is enormous potential for the citizens there. one of the things we focused on today was the foreclosure rescue scams and loan modification and the states like always are the laboratories of democracy. what we said from the states is the 20 states have laws now and more will as we go on have laws that say you can't get an advance fee if you are not going to modify a loan or rescue for closure. you have to do the work before you collect and that knocks at the heart of these kind of scams. also, you know, we talked about federal and state criminal prosecution that there are these operators that grew from state to state very quickly. we may shut them down in iowa north carolina, etc. but they keep moving. criminal prosecution is a game ginger and something we want to work with federal government on

as well to change the game that way. >> i was wondering are you working on various antitrust action we have heard about insurance -- [inaudible] how well are you cooperating among attorney general's? >> anybody want to jump in on that? use through a little bit of a curve, not on a fair but little turf. we start with a task force to deal with mortgage enforcement and secretary geithner expanded to all financial issues and financial fraud but on the antitrust level, chris is the assistant general for antitrust. we've had discussions with her there again i think there will be terrific working relationship. there are cases being discussed but they are confident what this point. we also work with ftc on their part of the authority as well.

>> of the antitrust issue, -- richard blumenthal -- on the antitrust issue as you may know, connecticut is engaged in a very active on going investigation of the rating agencies and anti-competitive practices that have involved than relating to securitization as well as other ratings that have been given and we have been in touch with both department of treasury and the department of justice about those investigations, something relevant to the subject that brought us here today but i would add to what tom said so well which is in my 20 years, close to 20 years as attorney general we've never had a meeting like this. this kind of meeting is unprecedented to have three members of the cabinet's meet with a group of attorneys general simply has not happened

before and that fact alone would be worth mentioning as reflecting a spirit of cooperation could also was a substantive meeting not just for show. tom mentioned there was a lot of discussion where we go from here. and most important mabey is the recognition that we have an epidemic of mortgage rescue scams in this country, but that problem is simply one species of a larger debt rescue from epidemic. if you listen on the radio or watch tv uc them literally before your eyes and they are operating invisibly in plain sight and we need to attack and say we will find you, we will find you and put you in prison.

that is the message to come from today's meeting. ploch more aggressive joint approach to investigating and prosecuting these kind of scams because they've really exploit people's lives in a very tangible way that is not only heartbreaking to people you deal with these problems but should grasp the attention of policymakers as well. >> i am the attorney general of maryland. you have a question right here? >> i was wondering if you were also could board meeting responses to stimulus scams? [inaudible] >> anyone at all. >> that's also on the agenda and we talked to the justice about that. and in the administration and has been clear they want to reach out to the states to deal with any kind of scams or

fraudulent use of the stimulus money. it's a large amount of money and very important to our country and when you generate a lot of money in a short period of time there is fraud and abuse. the attorney general's of this country talk about this and will be working on it together to try and deal with those issues. >> tom miller from iowa. sorry. any other questions, comments? yes? >> as far as the mortgage fraud scams go, how much of a threat to these ongoing have on the housing market recovery if any and what are some specific examples you guys see as being problematic for the market's? >> within our states we all have a number of these cases and maryland for example we prosecuted 23 cases and have more in the pipeline.

that was a message around the table how many we are prosecuting. we're looking at individual states and the second thing we are talking about our best practices. the advance loan money has been talked about. in maryland for example we prohibit reconvenes where there is a promise to get back the house after -- with a promise we will get you back the title. in terms of the impact, does anyone want to address that? >> lisa madigan attorney general from illinois. to your question here is what happens, an individual is not able to continue making their full mortgage payment so they are in the beginning stages of foreclosure. the end up in foreclosure and may or may not know what to do and they may or may not reach out and seek legitimate help either from their linder were their servicer. sometimes when they reach out and seek help they've been stymied. it's been a difficult process for them to get through.

this information about their financial condition vis-a-vis their mortgage becomes available to scam artists so scam artists reach out and offer them something enticing, the ability to stay in their home. they will work, allegedly, with the servicer, with your lender and give you a modification. that is what they tell you then they tell you but in order to do that you are going to need to give us a substantial up-front fee. that's the scam. they take the money and they may or may not help you contact your lender and get the modification. most of the time they take the money and you don't get a modification and find yourself out of thousands of dollars and potentially two, three, four months later in terms of your payments and seeking free legitimate help so in the state of illinois, similar to maryland and other states, we filed 28 cases. we have 250 on the

investigations. we do have a law that prohibits the advanced fees and we found is when you tell these companies, these operators you can't get an advance fee they readily say that we are shutting down because there's no money to be made in this state saw one of the reasons we have to come together and work on this is because these are not just isolated incidents taking place on a broad basis across the country and there are literally thousands and thousands of people so for the cases we've brought the 28 cases about 2300 homeowners have been impacted. we've recovered millions of dollars for them and it's not only a scam we are seeing in terms of mortgage rescue fraud but also that we are seeing debt settlement companies, so for folks struggling with their credit card debt and other debt exact same scam, give your money and we will deal with your creditors to read the take your money and don't help with your

creditors and you are wages garnished. >> [inaudible] -- someone in a state that doesn't have a law for the fees' speak to the federal law on that? had the ftc gave a number think it was 20 -- 23. >> i believe it is 23. >> it isn't only the states that don't have the law because a lot of the scams operate nationwide. they operate from outside the borders and they will use the internet or other means of communication to solicit within the state's and they are very difficult to reach. so there is clearly the need for national all the other by rulemakings from the ftc which is considering it as you have probably heard german leibowitz mentioned today it can be donner

the national level through the rulemaking process. or -- we are supporting it and invite you to submit comments support of the and i think we will. [inaudible conversations] i was probably one of the ones who signed up. [laughter] >> [inaudible] -- they must not have that law? >> california as a long. >> im the attorney-general north carolina. the ftc is considering a rule making it national. the reason we want this provision of advanced fees is we can come in immediately and shut down the company because oftentimes they will pretend to do something, they will send a letter to the lender, they will talk about the fact send us your

information and we will look over the loan. they are not really doing anything that they are acting like they're doing something so it is more difficult to prove they are ripping somebody off but when you have a law and fund preventing the upfront fee we can immediately go into court and get an injunction and shut them down. it also discourages legitimate law firms the scanners are getting to give them a shield and respectability. so when we began the advanced fees' we will do a lot to stop them and these scam artists crawled out from under rocks and prey on people's desperation and on people's hopes and we think it is critical to stop them. >> we have time for one or two more questions and then some of us will hang around. >> [inaudible] -- what about the victim's? are you considering programs

that would help the victims falling for the scam, more behind on their mortgage, more trouble other than just getting their money back is their something that can be done to help the situation? >> the president has helped so that is why so many of these scams are coming up because there is legitimate loan modification programs that is out there and then there is the scam artists taking advantage of an unsuspecting people often the same ones in foreclosure problems in the first place because they may not have been so sophisticated or suspecting when they signed the original mortgage. does anyone want to comment further on that? >> two things through the prosecution's we bring, we get people their money back. after that, an elderly and i believe a number of other states are in the position they've had to set up programs to help people secure legitimate of occasions.

we have a whole litters the line we put in place in august of 2008. we have received over 15,000 calls. we have for hud counselors we have on the staff to do two things, either direct people to other housing counseling agencies in the communities to work with them to secure help to get a modification or sometimes we obviously have the housing counselors during that out of our office working with servicers and lenders but it is a model i think some of us need to adopt because of the overwhelming need holders have the for struggling to pay their mortgages and allow them to be able to stay in their homes and have that be a secure community. >> we might emphasize, too, one other issue we talked about a fair amount was the modification programs. that is the single most important thing we can do to help homeowners and stabilize the economy. that is the number-one priority.

we look to the federal to push the servicers, the servicers are doing better but they still have a long way to go. they need greater staff and have them better trained and the need to continue to change the culture of the company's away from collecting to modifying. >> last question. he won the last question? yes. >> as far as the modification scams are you finding seniors are particularly prime targets for the companies, and if so, how are you trying to reach out to them differently -- >> seniors are one of the top minorities. we find a place in maryland generally targeted as well and we are trying to get -- one of the things we're talking of doing is getting information to consumers in general and then target, as targeting senior centers and that kind of thing

with literature and of we dance of these kind of scams making sure they know some of the rules in maryland for example in order to even practice this loan modification industry you have to have a license and be certified. we tell them what to look for and that kind of thing. one other piece we are going after is the unfair and deceptive practices which we can as states going to the consumer protection act of the state to get them away from the market of which they are marketing the same groups seniors and minorities. anyone else on to speak to that? ..

along with four cabinet secretaries and talking about an issue when we are working together to attack this problem from the federal and state side and i think obviously this will be the beginning of the end of that dialogue as we continue with the task force is in working groups of some of those willing your around for a little while but if you have additional questions, but thank you for being here.

the congressman ron paul one sewell the federal reserve accountable for the country's economic crisis.

>> next a hearing on the war in afghanistan produced witnesses before the senate foreign relations committee include ryan crocker the service u.s. ambassador to pakistan and iraq. this is about to end a half hours. [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. let me explain to folks originally this hearing had been set for 10:00 today. it is our hope that somewhere around 10:00 we will have a quorum so that the senate, so the foreign committee can conduct its business meeting. we have some nominations to report out, so i hope colleagues and their staff particularly can ensure that if we aim for 10:00 he began be very minimalist

requirement on everybody's time. meanwhile, we will go into the substance of today's hearing, the second and a series of hearings were going to have. yesterday was the first hearing. we heard three compelling cases, each of them making strong arguments individually for how america should proceed in the prescriptions range from dramatically reducing the footprint to expanding our commitment of troops and money to a level that would basically constitutes pretty significant nation-building. john nagl, the co-author of the military counterinsurgency mandell the work closely with general petraeus argued that the victory could require as many as according to the field manual or standard counterinsurgency operation 600,000 troops and a commitment of at least five years. the bulk of those troops, up to four and a thousand would

eventually be afghan but it was clear and stated that u.s. forces would be needed for years as trainers as combat mentors in order to fill the security gap before the afghans were able to take over. stephen bedell argue the benefits of a counterinsurgency campaign allaway the cost but that it was a very close call. he had knowledge both the need for more troops and a genuine possibility of failure even if we do up the ante. in is due there can be no effective counterterrorism without an effective counterinsurgency and he agreed with dr. nagl about the need for a significant u.s. military involvement in afghanistan to help prevent the destabilization of pakistan. finally rory stuart challenged assumptions of the administration policy. instead of the escalation he recommended we maintain a small counter-terrorism capacity to deny safe haven to well kiting

continue providing development aid at a low key long-term basis. he argued that we need not physically block al qaeda from returning to afghanistan. we did have to keep afghanistan from providing al qaeda with conditions of security and operational ease that they could not get in pakistan. somalia, yemen or elsewhere. >> argue pakistan would stand or fall on its own regardless of the events across the border. listening to these distinguished experts argue their cases and listening to the important and i think very penetrating questions of my colleagues it was obvious that their fundamental disagreements that need to be resolved in order to try to build a consensus around a policy for going forward in afghanistan. despite the differences i believe there some central truths on which we can all agree. first, we need a winning civilian strategy.

i've said repeatedly that we will not force the surrender of the taliban by military force alone. therefore any strategy that lacks a strong civilian component is doomed. second, our greatest national priority here is to ensure that afghanistan does not destabilize pakistan. as we debate how to succeed in afghanistan we must evaluate the impact of every decision on their beleagured allies in the islamabad but history tells us that challenge is not only from the east. afghanistan shares a 1,003 and mild northern border with central asian countries that have suffered from instability themselves. iran and russia have also have a vested interest in afghanistan. unless we find common ground with them i would think that we will continue competing instead of cooperating. third, we need to counter the growing narcotics problem. as we described in a committee

report released last month senior military and civilian officials believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat the taliban and establish good government without disrupting afghanistan's opium trade. afghanistan supplies more than 90% of the world's heroin and generates $3 billion a year and profits, money that helps to finance the taliban and other militant groups. we need to be realistic and pragmatic. unlike the rack afghanistan is not a reconstruction project. it it is a construction project. a project in one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world. we have to come up with concrete goals to be clear about what and how much we are prepared to do to achieve them. i might add it that may well be a fourth thing on which we can agree and that is that the problem of governance may even be in fact more serious than the challenge of the taliban.

many people suggest and i am not sure it isn't now becoming more clear, that the absence of governance, the inadequacy of governance, the corruption of the governments in afghanistan is perhaps one of the most demoralizing and defeating components of what may drive some people from the taliban or elsewhere and that is something we need to address. today we welcome for witnesses it will take is deeper into this debate by sharing their ideas for what should change on the ground in order to succeed in afghanistan. i might say three of them have traveled a long distance and we are very, very appreciative. the honorable ambassador ryan crocker live from the west coast to be here just for this in general craddock drove all the way up from north carolina to be here and i'm not sure about everybody else is travel but were enormously appreciative of everybody being here. we will hear from general

craddock verse is the supreme allied commander in europe until a couple of months ago when he retired from the army. we will be followed by ambassador ryan crocker our former ambassador to iraq and pakistan and kabul in very few people have as much experience in this region and in these challenges as ambassador crocker. dr. claire lockhart, co-author of fixing failed states and a former adviser to the afghan government will discuss your recommendations for a successful civilian strategy and finally the doctor khaled hosseini the well-known author of "the kite runner" and "a thousand splendid suns" and stan is u.n. special envoy for refugee issues. we are delighted each of you could be here with us today. thank you. senator lugar. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. since president obama's inauguration this administration is taking a series of steps to reorder american foreign policy

priorities. the president identified the war in afghanistan has his administration's highest combat priority and has thus shifted resources from iraq to afghanistan and operation enduring freedom. he argues the united states effort in afghanistan had been neglected in favor of our intervention in iraq. president obama made an important effort to sustain continuity of command in control of our defense department at the highest levels by retaining an effective and respected secretary of defense and promoting general petraeus from commander of u.s. forces in iraq to commander of central command where he heads our military efforts across the region. both men have identified civil military coordination as essential for progress toward u.s. goals in the region. adimora operational level president obama named ambassador

richard holbrooke is special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he leads our strategic engagement with the governments of the region an hour our abul ambassadors working tirelessly in carrying out their respective duties. the u.s. diplomatic effort is drawing an caused by admiral mike mullen chairman of the¿ joint chiefs, beyond his responsibility for ensuring the fitness and readiness of our fighting forces worldwide. he is closing gates and the delicate and essential security discussions across south asia and many visits to afghanistanç and to forgeç a closer more consonant relationship between our government in each of theirs. these leaders are seeds of our commitment to afghanistan and pakistan and strengthening the foundations for stability. they along with secretary of state clinton national security

adviser james jones and vice president biden are together in the final stages of a crucial review of our strategies and policies in the region. but the president is the commander in chief and he is the one who will make the final choices from the options he has presented. it is widely hope he will produce a coherent operational strategy for the united states engagement in afghanistan. such an integrated strategy has yet to be unveiled despite the many high and low level reed used and none has been described by the president with the force and conviction necessary to persuade the american people to much longer albeit necessary commitment to achieve stability in the region. as he formulates his new strategy, i strongly urge the president to make a concerted effort to work personally with gly urge the president to make a concerted

effort to work personally with the congress which will control the purse strings for our endeavors in the region. we in congress have heard of general outlines of an approach to the region, highlighted by to the region, highlighted by the president and his senior@@'# considering the important role of development for the region, i am troubled there's still no usaid administrator. as a member of votes this committee in agriculture

committee i'm concerned about reports that $70 million in usaid money will be transferred to the department of agriculture to develop in expeditionary agricultural development capacity for afghanistan. this i believe is normally the job of the usaid. at the moment the committee has been informed that general mcchrystal's suggestions for future strategy and tactics are being studied in the administration. we are led to believe that after the administration has studied the mccrystal report for an indefinite period of time the general may suggest troop levels for the united states and our nato allies necessary to achieve the administration's final decision on the objectives. the committee hearings this week offers the administration an opportunity to explain the challenges and difficult decisions to be made after

nearly a year of study. invitations were issued but they were declined. thus we have turned today to key actors and former officials experiencing governments, war zones, afghanistan in the region to provide their inside and recommendations. we are deeply grateful to have accepted our invitation to present timely information to our committee and to all americans and extensively covered public form. i hope the administration will soon decide on the time for its use to reach the american people. in any event it is critical the full force and voice of the president lead the discussion around this national strategic priority with so many american lives and hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. only he can lay the foundation that will gain the confidence of congress and the hour soldiers,

our development experts, our diplomats and our partners. i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much senator lugar. we are going to begin with general craddock and then run right across the table so generally if you would be good enough. your full testimonies will be placed in the record as a fradin falso if you could summarize and approximately five minutes or so it would be helpful and then we can have time for discussion. >> chairman kerry-- >> we need five more centers of leaking get them here for the quorum. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. the focus of this hearing is important, timely and essential. as i've been requested to provide insight on the counternarcotics efforts i will short focus my remarks in that area. before exploring the challenge i would like to emphasize that the nato commitment to afghanistan as an alliance is strong. i would also point out the commitment differs among

individual nato members. continue united states leadership in this mission is essential to both deep and the level of support of nato and to ensure continue participation of all alliance members. with regard to the issue of counternarcotics in afghanistan may i preface my comments and responses to your later questions with the understanding my perspective is from my last assignment on active duty with the united states orn forces, that of the supreme allied commander of europe, a new perspective. and october 2006 nader assumed responsibility for security for the entire country of afghanistan. the authority was provided to the supreme allied commander by the north atlantic council. the means of granting that authority was to the council's approval for the nato military operations plan for afghanistan. the strategic operations plan contains instructions to all subordinative mans responsible for conducting operations in afghanistan concerning counternarcotics operations.

specifically naval forces were not to conduct counternarcotics operations or activities to include eradication of poppy crops. what was permitted was support to the afghan counternarcotics forces, support in terms of information, intelligence, logistic support and it required support and medical support for afghan counter narcotics forces. all upon request by those forces. in february 2007 the current assessments, discussions with afghan authorities in consultations with the united kingdom and united states counternarcotics authorities all combine to establish a strong link between the traffickers and afghan insurgents particularly the taliban for goi growing body of evidence indicated much of the funding of the insurgency was being generated by the narcotics industry in afghanistan. u.n. experts estimated upwards of 2 million narco dollars going into insurgent coffers.

it was at that point as the strategic amend or began to urge for the approval of additional authority for naval forces in afghanistan to conduct operations against both narcotics facilities and facilitators. our assessment was that reducing the money available to the insurgents would make it more difficult for them to hire soldiers, improvise-- and by weapons material, all the essential and reducing the level of violence in providing enhanced security. it was not until november of 2008, some 18 months later that nato villa a defense ministerial meeting approve these additional stories. the minister's concluded preponderant the devin supported the assessments that the narcotraffickers for providing support to the insurgency. subsequency aydin said orders were issued and naval forces began using the expanded authorities. as of mid june some 25 counternarcotics operations have

been conducted either by nato forces alone or in conjunction with afghan counternarcotics forces with favorable results. many processing facilities, and laboratories have been destroyed , opium paste and refined heroin confiscated impersonal apprehended. all much has been accomplished much more remains to be done. first and foremost nato, isaf forces must continue to conduct operations against facilities and facilitators not only to reduce the money available for the insurgents but also with the secondary effect of reducing the level of corruption countrywide. secondly nato nato member nations want a bilateral basis must continue to partner and support the development of the afghan security and counternarcotics forces. the end state for this effort are fully capable afghan security forces that minimize the impact of narcotics on the afghan society. once again thank you for this opportunity to appear before

this committee and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you general craddock. ambassador crocker. >> thank you members of the committee. it is an honor to be before you today. i have that honor on the number of occasions in the past as a witness for the administration. today's the first time i can honestly say in addition to being an honor it is also a pleasure. [laughter] mr. chairman, afghanistan is a critical national security interests for the united states, for the region and for the international community. general craddock kez address some of the nato perspective. i would comment briefly on a regional perspective focusing particularly on pakistan where i was ambassador from 2004 to 2007 and in the eye ran for i was involved in direct scotians with the iranians on afghanistan from

2001 to 2003. mr. chairman as you know so well our relationship with pakistan is vital for our nation's national security as well as for stability in afghanistan. we were closely allied with pakistan in the effort to force the soviets out of afghanistan in the 1980's but once the soviets were out so were we and pakistan went from being the most allied of the allies to being a sanction pariah. after 9/11 we are back. pakistani's whatcom their reputing sageman but they ask again for how long? we have an urgent need to build a stable sustained relationship with pakistan and mr. chairman you, senator lugar and this committee have shown a way to your sponsorship of the enhanced

partnership with pakistan act. it is precisely the type of long-term undertaking both of our nation's need. pakistan today faces then enter related set of insurgencies, kashmiri militants to the east, al qaeda's and taliban to the west and an internal insurgency that targets pakistan's principal cities. it can be argued that much of this insurgency as pakistan's own making but there is also a pakistani narrative that says in the case of support for the taliban they had no choice after we withdrew in the 1990's. mr. chairman during my time in pakistan i came to know a large number of mainstream political figures and senior military officers. none of them share the taliban division for pakistan and afghanistan yet many remain on

certain over the long term prospects for relationship. we need to learn from our past experience and build for a better future and your legislation mr. chairman shows us all the way. afghanistan's western neighbor, iran's is a very set of-- different set of challenges. the multiple differences between united states and iran need no elaboration from me. on afghanistan however we have a bad times found room for cooperation. in the wake of 9/11 when i sat down with the iranians under u.n. auspices i found them fully supportive of u.s. military action to bring down the taliban. usib irina agreement on the afghan interim authority was at the core of the success of the u.n.-sponsored bonn conference. after i reopener embassy in kabul in january 2002 we

discussed with the iranians under u.n. auspices ways to strengthen the interim administration and reduce the power of the warlords. the iranians had their bets however also providing sanctuary for the al qaeda figures later implicated in the tax in the arabians peninsula that brought to an effective than that dialogue with iran. mr. chairman the administration has stated its willingness to engage in a dialogue with the iranians. i think this is a positive step and i certainly supported them i hope afghanistan will be on the agenda, that the iranians will take a strategic look at their own interests because i think those interests also lie in a stable afghanistan. mr. chairman i would offer a couple of thoughts based on my experience in iraq. one must be careful as you know

not to draw too many parallels. construction in afghanistan and reconstruction and iraq i think is a very good point. it is going to be very hard in afghanistan. that does not mean hopeless. we have some very fine people in the fight and general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry in afghanistan and ambassador patterson in afghanistan in my old comrade from baghdad, general petraeus now overseeing both wars i think and give all americans confidence that the right people are in the right place. it is the presidents, as senator lugar said he must show the way. when he does i hope this committee and counterparts in the senate and the house will seek from my former colleagues that irreplaceable perspective which is the view from the

field. mistakes are very high indeed in afghanistan, and mr. chairman i think all of us in america are indebted to you and the committee for helping us eliminate these issues. thank you sir. >> thank you very much mr. ambassador. i don't think i did justice in introducing the outstanding service that he provided us and i reckon pakistan into your career and we are very grateful. i know how much value to presidents have in your advice and we are very grateful to you. ms. lockhart. i think we have-- we are two senators away from an interruption. >> i thank you for the opportunity to address you. there is now emerging recognition there's no military resolution to the situation in

afghanistan and governance developments are more important tools. i believe the establishment of afghans sovereignty by which i mean enabling afghans to exercise self rule through afghan visitations that can provide their own security, governance and revenue raising capability provides the framework that we need and it will provide first a means of stabilizing afghanistan and the nine space for the taliban to recognized primarily from the weakness of the afghan institutions. that provides the basis for an honorable exit for american forces and presence on the ground for a transition strategy of the don't want to call it an exit strategy and third demonstrates to the afghan population that the u.s. and allied-- is not an occupation.

norris of an open-ended occupation. the military building up the afghan security forces in protecting the population and i believe we now need a similar articulation of a strategy for governance development that matches the one the military has put forward in regular detail. first i would like to reflect on the mistakes made. i think over the last year's we have not had a clear strategy for the civilian component for governance and development. afghan institutions have been catastrophically underresourced. when i was on the ground in afghanistan between 2001 and 2005 the first afghan budget for a civil service in 2002 was resourced at the level of $20 million in this was enough to pay fuel for a month but not to pay the doctors teachers and policemen salaries of the $2 a month and much activity from the system has been

counterproductive. the provision of billions of dollars with very little accountability in particular to u.n. agencies and ngo's not addresses the great work many agencies have done in from the perspective of an afghans in its and with no hope for a job for education there has been little output-- alec but to join in narcotics industry in many parts of the country. moving forward i think the first question to address is what does good enough governments look like? the first component is security, building of the afghan national army, the police force, the afghan intelligence services and justice institutions of law enforcement institutions but security institutions alone won't make an afghan government capable of exercising the authority and maintaining stability in the country to allow it. it requires a my u3 other components. the first of these is rule of law, the decision-making institutions across the cabinet

and across the levels of the afghan governance, the capitol city kabul, up at the province level, municipalities and villages. the second component is public finance. we hear a lot about corruption and it think we need to take a clear head and look at the other side of that coin, how to build the systems of accountability and revenue raising in public expenditure that will allow afghanistan to raise its own revenue and expand its own resources on its institutions for the decades to come? the third component is basic services and we are not talking here about holland or switzerland but the basic services at the village level in the arrogation to allow the agriculture livelihoods' health and education that will allow afghans to live lives with dignity and this will require investments and education, another critical look and has

been only to educate afghans of to the age of 11 and we are not going to have a civil service or a market economy capable of being self-sufficient. i think we have grounds for optimism. i question the myth of afghanistan as an inherently correct culture for the warlords. there is an afghan-- and there was a reasonable standard of governance in the middle decades of the 20th century ago when i writing kabul there were two and 40,000 civil servants in place across the country administering the country fairly well. i think the culture of corruption is than one that has been allowed to fester but is not of the culture and finally this series of successes between 2001 and five were a political framework articulated through bonn allowed for a number of initiatives to be successful. most notably the afghan national army from scratch and a number of national programs including the national solidarity program

that sold block grants issued to every village in the country that allows villages to maintain their own affairs. i think we also have grounds for pessimism in the legacy of decades of war and a lost generation and corruption was allowed to set in at the heart of the government institutions back into-- back in 2004 the group of us assisting the government realized it was probably inevitable that description would continue to fester and allow the country to fall back to the taliban. don't think this was inevitable and i don't think it is too late to put it right. i will conclude with some short reflections on the emerging strategy. i think we can be encouraged to see that there is a strategy emerging from kabul under the leadership of ambassador eikenberry and his excellent team in accord nation with general mcchrystal appoint in place a strategy that will support the creation of the adequate and necessary afghan

institutions and i think this is balanced with the understanding that we can't just focus on state institutions. we must also allow the space for civil society to hold that the government accountable and invest in market institutions to trade in the short term jobs that will pull people away from ellison activities and over the medium term laid the basis for an economy that will make afghanistan self-sufficient and i think we face to immediate challenges. varies said the the elections recently held did not renew the governance settlement in the country and this is tragic that thing because it was avoidable and i do think some questions need to be asked of the way the election was managed by the u.n. so those mistakes can be avoided in the future and afghanistan and in other countries. but we now face a paradox because the strategy requires there to be a close nation governments with a vision the people can sign up to and that government does not yet in place. i think we have different

options before a government that is good enough can be put in place. once that political assessment is in place that will allow for the process of reconciliation with groups across the country then i think the second key need is to articulate the governance development strategy that is necessary. it is possible to put in place and it must be resourced with the adequate resources that have been so sorely missing in the last few years. thank you. >> thank you ms. lockhart. it is and important point of view and i'm confident people will want to follow-up on that. >> dr. hosseini thank you very much for being with us and sharing your very important and on the ground vision and we appreciate it. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of the committee on behalf of the office of the united nations high commission for refugees i would like to express my appreciation for this

opportunity to appear before you and to offer my perspectives and concerns on the afghan refugee situation and the overall conditions in afghanistan. in a way of background unscr has 12 offices inside of afghanistan it is said its presence in afghanistan since the late 1980's and maintained an office during the taliban rule in the 1990's. at the peak of the afghan displace a crisis in the mid-1990s some 8 million afghans fled, and went to neighboring pakistan and iran. >> can i interrupt you for a moment because i want to take advantage of the fact that we have a quorum in the committee here. i promise some colleagues who would make that part of the meeting greet so thank you for letting me interrupt and of the record could perhaps not reflect the interruption because we move to a business meeting and it is to consider six nominees

secretary of state robin hormats to be undersecretary state for economic energy and agricultural affairs, excuse me secretary of state, yes, and to be the u.s. alternate governor for several international financial institutions the international bank of reconstruction development for a term of five years, united states alternate governor of the development bank for a term of five he is, alternate governor of the african development bank for a term of five years, united states alternate governor of the african development fund, united states alternate governor of the asian development bank in united states alternate governor of the european bank for reconstruction and development. david j. qassam to be ambassador to canada, barry white to be ambassador to norway and leif eynstein to be ambassador to poland. i am unaware of any request for

a roll call votes so it there is a motion-- >> on the nomination of robert hormats-- >> the adoption is move. is there a second? seconded, senator kaufman, all those in favor say aye, opposed nay. the ayes have it, the nominees are approved in the committee and will be reported to the floor. is there any further business to come before the committee? if not we will return to the hearing. thank you all for helping to get the quorum here. dr. hosseini will you pick up where you left off? as a said the record will not record the interruption. >> after the fall of the taliban in 2001, unscr began the largest repatriation operation in the history of the agency, redeeding since 2002 some 5 million afghans and unscr has offices in iran and pakistan for which this

is some 2.6 million refugees who have yet to return home. i came back yesterday from a five day trip to afghanistan were met with ordinary afghans were met with refugees, displaced people, aid workers and officials and i will focus my comments first on the needs of the afghan refugees particularly those who have recently returned to afghanistan from neighboring countries and then on the needs of the afghan people in general. on the issue of refugees some never integrated successfully and their presumed relatively subtle lights but many devin may continue to struggle. it has been a major challenge to say the least for many returnees to start their lives in a country where basic services have collapsed. some of the returnees five met last week lived in squalid, banned in public buildings or in tents or on government land in dry remote and inaccessible areas. they complained of the lack of basic services like water, food,

schools, clinics and mazen for glee jobs. some had a great fear of the coming winter. given these difficult realities may be it is not surprising that 2.6 million afghans still live in exile. 80% of them have lived there for more than two decades and half of them were born there and after 30 years of living in exile, given the state's low absorption capacity many may not which to ever come home. it is imported however that return be made as attractive as possible so the informant within the country is more conducive to the social and economic well-being of refugees. that means afghan authorities in partnership with international committee have to work on critical factors like security, employment opportunity, access to land, water, shelter,

education and health facilities in order for their repatriation to become a more attractive option. the needs of returning refugees have to be included in national programs. unscr can help with its expertise lies in emergency response and legal physical immaterial protection. as part of the initial integration process the unscr provide shelter, water, transport and family grants of returning refugees need more. any security, they need stability and economic and social opportunity and those unscr can certainly act as a partner and is an advocate for these need to cannot provide them. it has to rely on reconstruction and development partners to create the socioeconomic opportunities for a durable return so to that end donor support an continue engagement of the international community is indispensable. on the broader front of me said

afghanistan has been in a state of conflict for almost 30 years. the country and its population made huge sacrifices during the soviet occupation. every family i have met and that i've spoke to have been touched by tragedy, the tragedy on a scale that few can imagine for committee afghans believe that the final violent chapter of the cold war was inked with their blood. today my impression is that afghanistan faces yet another critical and political moment in its unstable history. i believe there's an opportunity in afghanistan an opportunity to build on the provinces that have been made since 2002. despite the sobering realities we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there has been progress. crenson 6 million children are enrolled in 9,000 schools run the country. afghans have greater access to the health sector. commerce and enterprise are appreciably increased. for structure is booming than technology especially

telecommunications appears poised to leapfrog afghan business development. there is free press and greater personal freedom. all of us would like to see it reach more afghans and there are many challenges that can undermine the progress we have seen but the decline in retake theorization is an indicator of that security remains a major obstacle in the economy is not grow quickly enough especially in rural areas. afghanistan remains when the poorest countries in the world partly in fact-- poverty is the number-one killer. average life expectancy is one the lowest in the world. 25,000 plus women die every year in child book. though is starkly there's no tradition of extremism and afghanistan poverty can make people especially unemployed aimless young people more vulnerable to exploitation by extremist groups. military intervention is an important part of

counterinsurgency by its-- but only part of. counterinsurgency effort to include economic prevention as will. when people have a roof over their head food on their table in a school to send their kids do they are less likely to be influenced by extremist forces. the ear huge challenges to be addressed. during my visit all the afghans i encountered express concerns about their future and some disappointment about the present. it clearly expected more from their government but none of them wanted to go back to the past and i see no reason why we should allow ourselves to be the fetus and let the country's slide back towards a struggle pass. the afghan people don't want the men and we should secure the monosyllables of improvements in people's lives that will earn as such good will and make such a difference in afghanistan possibility. there are produced to be seized but if all parties accept the responsibilities that begins first and for most of the afghans themselves. they have to do their part. this is their country.

afghan leaders have to balance that their people expect more from them and rightfully so. the have to resourced people's scathing governor institutions but i stress this of the international community must maintain its continued support for the afghan people and it has to be patient. i am aware of the current debate in this country about the afghan war and i feel deep empathy for the families of lost loved ones in afghanistan. i know i speak for most afghans when i say how grateful afghans are for their service. let's not let the sacrifices of our service people men and women be in vain. let's be patient. let's consider no country in history has been able to establish a functioning state and a strong economy in a stable society in a handful of years. afghans are proud people and they don't want to be a source of regional and international instability. the don't want to be known for producing refugees and economic migrants around the world.

they want no more or no less than other people in developing countries want for their children and themselves. if the basic essentials can be provided i truly believe disclosure can be brought to the or the members of the committee may have. >> thank you all of you for helping to set the stage. theroux lot of questions that flow out of your test monies and i'm confident that my colleagues will pursue them. what is interesting to me as i was sitting here thinking and i was listening to your testimony dr. hosseini and ms. lockhart. both of you describe an urgent humanitarian need, and arjun challenged in terms of nation building, state building, the challenge of governance. on the other hand we have had troops on the ground and we have been in afghanistan for eight years now.

we are nearing the eight year anniversary right now and the test for us in terms of policy-- if you took away al qaeda manticle wade the there would be a challenge to assist what our foreign policy a program ought to be and what the levels have the assistance we might give our but right now our challenge is also to try to figure out what the level of military involvement, the troop involvements ought to be and indeed whether security interests are and how they can be further with respect to the afghanistan. the president of the united states has defined the mission in a more limited fashion really by saying that our goal is to take on al qaeda, dismantle them and/or eliminate them and to prevent them from having a safe haven and sanctuary for which they can attack the united states and to prevent

destabilization of pakistan where we have an even larger and more vital interests so the test for us here as we think about our policy going forward, and we need to ask questions about the nation-building and the relationship of it to those interests but the key here is really to try to hone in i think on those interests and how we can best serve them. with one of the essential questions we need to get that i think ambassador crocker you can perhaps help us do that is, you know, while you were there for a period of time, the pakistani's prove themselves capable of living pretty comfortably with a pretty-- pakistan's capacity to govern did not threaten them existentially. today that is change a little bit of obviously because of the haqqani network, the

presidents-- presence of al qaeda but the question crosson i want to ask you to begin here is help us to understand and define for us with the real impact of the taliban is today and might be on this stability of pakistan and wooded in fact be in existential challenge to them at the taliban took over in afghanistan today? >> thank you mr. chairman. that is indeed a key question and as you rightly point out we have seen an evolution during the 1990's. pakistan did indeed work out a modus vivendi with a taliban led government in afghanistan ended relative stability at home but that has changed. we have seen the evidence, you pointed to the haqqani network, the efforts of the no late

baitullah massoud, the developments in the swat valley. we have seen an increasing militancy within pakistan not restricted to the the border areas, that is growing to the point where for many pakistani's it does raise at least the question of an existential threat. now, i think there are other questions in pakistan, again about our staying power that still cause some hedging of bets there. the ultimate nightmare and pakistan would be to see us once again decide we are done. were done in afghanistan and we are done in pakistan, a repeat of the 1990's leaving them with what by that point may be a truly dangerous enemy. >> if i could just interrupt you for a moment.

let me make it clear from my pointage u.n. from senator lugar's point of view, there's no point-- there's a contemplation of not being committed to pakistan or of understanding the challenge of pakistan and the legislation we passed which you referred to states that commitment and we understand the importance to pakistan. there's no talk of diminishing that. with the question really begs is this, to what degree is afghanistan in fact left to its own devices or with a lesser footprints at jeopardy are our interests in fact challenge if we had a different approach to afghanistan? >> i think they would be challenged. simply put, mr. chairman iza reciprocity here. i don't think long-term stability can be brought to afghanistan without pakistan

also stabilizing but the reverse is also true. i don't think pakistan can face up to the challenges of militancy not just on its western borders but in the center of the country it that militancy succeeds in afghanistan. we'll know the history of the artificial nature of. there are more pastuns and pakistan then there are in pakistan, so a militant ascendancy in afghanistan i think will be severely destabilizing for pakistan. >> is there any degree-- yesterday it was suggested by rory stuart but perhaps the presence of the troops in the manner of the mission in afghanistan is to some degree destabilizing pakistan and adding to the capacity coupled with the corruption of the government's. it is adding to this ability of the taliban to find recruits and

make mischief. >> my experience is now somewhat dated. i left pakistan in 2007 but as of that time, i knew of no senior pakistani figure, military or civilian he was advocating a u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan. there was lots of criticism over how will we were prosecuting a mission but it was taken as a given and it might contacts there, that that mission needed to be prosecuted, perhaps some better different ways that that we needed to stay engaged there. >> i'm not suggesting-- i think just a plain withdraw would be disastrous on any number of fronts for the what we are trying to figure out is how to accomplish a mission, a level of mix of military and governance,

improvement and nation-building etc. is appropriate. i think some people are very fearful that right now there's this nondescript lucy ducey we have got to do this year and we will train the military and this and that. we heard yesterday that to properly effected counterinsurgency which has grown-- the taliban are now in control of 37% of the country where is the year ago they were in control of 20% and that growth has to make you pause and say okay, the western part in the northern parts have not reached but we hear it fears expressed the that may happen and therefore to be successful you have to begin to think about what is the troop ratio any to provide the security for adequate counterinsurgency and counterinsurgency whig aired yesterday's the distinctly

different mission from counter-terrorism. the mission as i understood it from the president was more counter-terrorism in afghanistan and stabilization with respect to pakistan so we have got to figure out if we are, is there a automatic and on avoidable mission creep here or is there an annenberg mission creep here or is there something in our automatic response to how we protect pakistan that requires us to feel that you have to do the counterinsurgency? that is i think the biggest tension here is what level of counterinsurgency the need to support the counter-terrorism effort and the destabilization peace and obviously pursue it further. senator lugar. >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to explore for a moment this thought that the chairman has mention which came

up in our hearing yesterday that is essentially one witness said the major reason why we ought to have stability in afghanistan is to help perpetuate stability in pakistan. one reason for having troops in afghanistan is simply because pakistan has nuclear weapons and in the event that there was a disintegration of governance in pakistan the various parts of the governance might take hold of the weapons and that really is a threat then well beyond it and we can discuss if al qaeda or whatever agents control of warheads or other instruments that changes the texture a great deal. now, this is sort of a turnaround for most of our discussions of afghanistan.

we have lived in afghanistan in terms of how villages could become more sufficient, how agriculture might rise and tell the drug abuse might be curtailed, in essence have more children could go to school and how women's rights would be fostered and that is the nature, to turn things around in afghanistan is important strategically in the united states because pakistan has a different twist. furthermore, there have been discussions in the press, even the press today, that one of the problems may be stability in afghanistan. of the people do not accept president karzai as their leader. it is not far-fetched some would say that given next door the problem in iran clearly a regime is still there but there have been people in