there in the north, some involved in muscular operations in the south, combat operations, but how to consult with those 43 nations are particularly the nato nations, to get this trust and confidence that we need and we haven't done a good job consulting. so i think that it's important to get nato and i think involved in this, with hillary clinton is doing there today will help make that happen. >> host: another point is from the opposite of "the new york times" by max hastings, a former editor of the daily telegraph in london who says in his piece, most decision makers on both sides of the atlantic now privately we are in the business of managing failure and that is how it looks. that can be turned over to the afghanis. there are secure areas and afghin afghanistan we can build.

i think what will happen is the training of the afghan forces will be down at the province level, the state level, not at the national level. i think the governors will have a much more robust play in how those forces are trained and will be under their control. so i think that it is not a recipe for failure. i think it is a carry for how we go forward for success. host: the other story and we were reading, on the front pages of " the new york >> host: we were reading front page of the ""new york times"" it's expanding inside pakistan. this happened two weeks ago. cia sharp shooters killing eight people. >> what do you know about this?

>> again, i know nothing classified. i've had some experience in el salvador where we had an insurgency there in the early 1990s. what you need to do is go after the leadership. the leadership of the insurgency is extremely important. that's what i think the drones are being used for. because they are across the border hiding in parts of pakistan and the other part that this is going to happen here, i think, as far as the plan, is to bring the pakistan and nato coalition forces closer together along the border with pakistan. and starting to coordinate their actions. i think this is absolutely essential. because this is much more than just an afghanistan problem. it's a strategic problem for the researchen. the drones are part of that. you are going to have a counterinsurgency, but counterterrorism. you need to blend both

together. i think that's what's going to be happening now in the next several months. >> good morning, on the democrats line. >> hi, i just don't understand why this is america's war. and i don't understand why we have to put up the brunt of money and forces and it seems to me like when bush talked about in iraq the coalition of the willing, and there was very little support. it was our war. and i just don't feel that we belong there. i think we need to spend our resources in the united states. >> well, i think what is happening is nato really has responsibility for afghanistan. that's why we had the international security force there, there's a u.n. resolution. it's been neglected for eight years. now we're coming back in to say how do we really get what was the source of the problems for

9/11? it came from afghanistan. we got our eye off the ball in my view by going into iraq too early. we ended up neglecting afghanistan. if we want to take afghanistan away from being a source of training for our al qaeda and other terrorists, if we want to get some stability, if we want to stop the momentum of the taliban, it's just not we the united states, it's we meaning 43 nations that need to work together. and i hope secretary of state clinton today in nato will be able to get that consensus that's required to be able to get nato. i am predicting several thousands of troops by nato. >> host: interviewing the secretary of state saying she is pleased so far with the effort by nato and the ap reporting

that the count of troops will be 7,000 additional with more to come. >> this is what consultation does. we never consulted to the degree that we needed to with nato. i spent my whole life back and forth on the iron curtain and the berlin wall, et cetera, for nearly most of my 36 years. we never really consulted with them. when you do, you get some degree of consensus that's required. and when you do that, you make them part of the solution. and that's what we're seeing now. and so they have a say in the decision sheet, the mission sheet that comes out for the alliance. general mcchrystal is a nato officer as well as a u.s. officer. there's a nato complain of command in afghanistan as well. how go get nato, 28 nations, to understand that is extremely important. they can provide add sets. by the way, it's not just not troop assets, we have training police of military, development

stuff that needs to go on, capacity building in the government, all of that needs to be addressed. and i think nato has the resources to do it. >> host: kenneth from wyoming. good morning on the republican line. >> caller: good morning, gentleman. >> host: thanks, go ahead with your question. >> caller: yeah, i have a comment and a question. i was drafted into the military in the earl '70s. i was stationed on board a nuclear submarine. i kind of now we were working with the iranians then. i kind of know what the situation was. and it is now -- and i am in support of president obama in what he's doing. i have a reservation in some of the things. but my question is are we adequately supplied going into

this war with afghanistan with the 30,000 that they are saying? or do we have to put in more troops to make sure that what our objective is is going to be met? >> well, i think that's up to general mcchrystal and others to address. but right now, for my understanding, there are hundred thousand troops there now, before you add the surge troops. so there are about 60,000 u.s. forces, 40,000 nato forces. and we're going to add anywhere from 30 to 34,000 u.s. and hopefully 5 to 10,000 nato forces. i think that's sufficient. what's going to happen is creating stability in certain areas of afghanistan. i think one of the key areas is shareef in the north. that can be developed in a way that creates stability in the

region, allows development to come in, you raise the militias or national guard under the control of the governor. and then you start from that success spreading out. that's what -- at least i hope is the plan. but there is opportunity. but i think he has enough resources to do it. and it would be useful and helpful if nato would do what i think they are going to do, and add 5 or 10,000 troops to it. >> i'm to categorize this as side bar. you graduated when? >> 1961. >> host: this is a photograph of those cadets listening to the president. about 4,000 in attendance at the eisenhower auditorium. which i don't know you are familiar with. >> yes. >> host: they referred to it as enemy camp? >> i didn't know that chris did

that. i'm not sure exactly what he meant. this is -- these young men and women that have devoted their lives and service to the nation, this has been going on at 1802 at west point. they have fought in every one of our wars? and i applaud what -- it's not the enemy camp, this is the source of strength for america. and these are america's young men and women. and i think these are the men and women that have to carry out the orders of the president and the national security team that puts them in harm's way. so i don't know why chris mentioned that as enemy camp. i think it suggests a poor choice of terms. and i would disagree with him. >> host: we'll listen to part of what the president said in just a moment. but first jake. >> caller: good morning. i'm just calling, you know, i had a question. but i need to preface it. i just want to say as a

followers of christ, i don't hold out much hope for the army of the world to bring peace in our time. i see what's going on, it has to be a perpetual war. for the sake of my children, bring our troops home. >> well, i understand where you are coming from. i've been involved in this for many, many years. i share your concern. hopefully, we can build the peaceful place. but when in a region of training of different type of war, terrorists can inflict serious harm on american citizens, and on our territory. then i think we need to have a strategy to be able to stand up to that. and part of the problem is when these terrorists get in, and

i've fought terrorists in latin america, in africa, in europe, and elsewhere. once they get momentum, it gets much more difficult. and these go all the way back further, but go back to the 1983 bombing of our troops in lebanon. so there has to be a way. and i think what has to happen, we have to adapt to the threat that we face. it's not what we did in the cold war. it's a new type of threat. we're learning painfully, we're learning as we go along. i think we have it right now. it's taken us several years to get it right. but i'm optimistic here that we can prevail. america must prevail. if we're going to preserve civilluation as we know it. >> host: your background is political, not military. but the president referring to the $30 billion price tag for the war in afghanistan that did

not outline a way to pay for it. congressman suggested that maybe we need a war tax. >> i would leave that up to the congress to decide. i understand this is a painful time for americans given the economy that we are in right now. all i would say is if you are going to put troops in harm's way, they have to have the resources to match the mission, the requirements. and i think it's important that we do that. i hope we can take that into consideration with our own economy, we've got to find ways to pay it. i'm sure the congress, if they can be convinced of the importance of this mission that always found a way to support our troops. and i don't -- i'm not doubting that they would do it this time. >> in the first four years, our guest served as the supreme european commander. and during the speech, earlier this week, the president

outlined the mission of part of what he had to say. >> because this is an international effort, i've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. some have already provided additional troops. and we're confident that we will see further contribution in the days and weeks ahead. our friends have fought, bled, and died alongside us in afghanistan. now we must come together to end this war successfully. what's at stake is not simply a test of nato's creditability. what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the war. >> host: did he make the case? >> i think so. and i think later in that speech he talked about the objectives in afghanistan, deny al qaeda's safe haven, deny it's ability to overthrow the government, and strengthen the capacity of afghanistan security forces in government.

so i think those goals are worthwhile votes. i truly believe that nato will ally around that. because they've been consulted now. not just by hillary clinton today, but by the president, the chairman, the joint chiefs of staff. they have been consulting, not just informing, consulting with the allies. we need to bring their committee, sovereign nations, committee forces here. they need to have a say before the decision is made. and that's what's going on now. >> host: you used to write speeches for george w. bush. in obama's case to make, one of the things he says in the forum as the casualties increase, effective explanation of this strategy will matter more and more. >> i think it's always a requirement. and no one, we got the conditions right. and the three missions were

there. we took not one hostile death casualty then, and not in 10 years. i think he has the conditions. i'm not as pessimistic as the article you just read it. i think we're going to have an opportunity here to create a situation in afghanistan that it cannot be used by terrorists again. and i'm more as i said, more optimistic. >> glen is joining us from connecticut. good morning. >> caller: good morning. steve, i have the presence to say this before i close my comment to the general. i watched the news media report on this war ever since it started. when the first troops went into afghanistan, i believe it was somewhat in the neighbor of tens of thousands. if we put in 68,000, i think the

situation in afghanistan would be much greater right now. and no one criticize the bush administration for how they spent all of our resources to iraq. and that burns me up. of as a veteran, i saw friends of mine die in vietnam, when the president didn't do the job that we were sent over there to do. and i just feel like the media in this country takes every negative thing that our president announces and blows it out of proportion. we have sent our troops over there, volunteers, to fight this war because we started something that we needed to do. and i just feel terrible that the media can now criticize president obama. who's only been in office for 12 months. >> host: thank you. we'll get a response from general. >> first of all, i served two tours in vietnam. i know what the troops are going

through here. and my own life has been trying to prevent this sort of issues that we had. the lack of clarity of what our mission was. i would agree with that that we went into afghanistan initially in 2001 after september 11. we were successful. and there was unity in the country, there was unity in nato. they declared for the first time in its history that attack upon one is an attack upon all. they were ready to support what they were trying to do. in the middle of all of that, when we were successful in afghanistan and had that follow up forces do the job, we switched to iraq. and i would agree with you there that we should have spent much more time stabilizing afghanistan. but unfortunately, we are what we are.

and where do we go from here? i think the president as commander in chief made, i believe, a very thorough analysis of where we need to go forward. he's consulted with the military. we are not committed. i would hope the american people would rally around that and support the decision. and hold us accountable for achieving the results, the military, that is, achieving the results that are required. and i would hope, and pray, that we are successful. but i think it's an excellent chance for us to reject and deny this area as the training ground for more terrorists. >> host: diane who is one of the regular viewers said president karzai announceed. who are they fighting in

afghanistan? >> in my view there's good taliban and bad taliban. i think that the idea trying to split just like we saw in iraq, insurgents where they were split to a degree of some that were there for different reasons. you have taliban that are there for many different reasons than other taliban. and how do you try to get those are willing to work and talk to the government, i think it would be a worthwhile thing to do. so i think it's a good move. you need to talk. i remember in el salvador to talk to the effort. i'll add sort of that brought about a peace treaty in 1992. >> rex is joining us from ohio. good morning, rex. >> caller: good morning. i can't believe that went through on the first ring. >> host: we're glad to hear from you. buy a lottery ticket. >> caller: i can't imagine that obama is watching

television over there, wanting to believe that, you know, the bush administration and mccain talked about 9/11, since the 9/11 attacks. but that was before the war that we can't win. the mission is more in balance to bring us to an economic collapse. they've done more than that, they've polarized them. and i can only see if we're going to get the war of our own. between the have and have notes. >> host: thank you, rex. >> i hope not. i think that the presidential level, commander in chief level, you have to made decisions. his decision was pull the plug. the military would flop. his decision was clear objective. limited in scope, limited in time. i think was the right way to go. i think we owe him a shot at

doing this correctly. i know the military will do all that they can to make them successful. i hope the american people will support this in a way that sends the right signal to our troops that they are being supported. then we will make the determination. if they don't measure up, then i think the president and his team will evaluate that, and make the proper decisions. >> and a follow up on my earlier question. chris matthews apologized for the enemy camp statement in the next evening. >> i've known him. it didn't seem right. i think it was a react, so to speak. look, our military captain are the source of our strength. the leaders that commit themselves, many of them for my case over 30 some years of service to the nation. and i think just hope that they have the support of our american people. they are outstanding young men

and women. > host: the house and senate hearings over the last couple of days. >> that's the point i'm trying to make. we will look at it in 2011 and begin the transition out. doesn't mean everybody comes out. depends what those conditions are. and i think if we have some success, i think this gives a close signal to the afghans, get your act together, get some training going, get some security forces up, get the corruption, and trafficking under control. show some signs by july of 2011 in the next 18 months. there'll be a reaccessment. if there's success, and you can see some success, i think you

can reinforce that success. but it's going to be afghans that have to provide the security and the police and military for that after that time. >> host: let me show the photograph from "time" magazine. this is through southern afghanistan. how much weight are they carrying? >> we have the same in vietnam. the technology is even better today. but they are carrying over 100 pounds on their back. some even more. sometimes they drop those sacks when they get ready to deploy. but they are taking a lot of weight. and that body armour and everything else. it can -- it gets tough. in the heat and dust and all of that. >> again these photographs from "time" in news stands today. annie has the last question. >> caller: good morning. thank you for the service, general. my question concerns the clarity

of the goals. i would like to have the president tell us exactly why we are there. are we there carrying some mineral or pipeline, just tell us that. but my problem is, and i think the problem with millions of americans that we rely on the war, and many of us do not believe the fact that they've been given to us surrounding 9/11. i think we have not been given anywhere near the truth surrounding the 9/11 attacks, and it is time to have a real and sincere investigation into 9/11 to where we can understand what really happened to drop the two towers. >> host: thank you. >> i -- someone is going to make -- there's been enough -- written studies about 9/11 and what caused it and what didn't cause it. i can tell you, i've listen very carefully to the president. one of my first conditions for

success was clayty of mission and -- clarity of mission and purpose. he said we must deny al qaeda a safe haven. this is very clear. we need to be able to develop the intelligence. the only way we are going to do it is get the afghan government to get to a state where they can provide for their own security. we must reverse taliban's momentum in deny the ability to overthrow the government. that's very clear. and we must strengthen the capacity and afghan security forces in government. so they can take and lead with afghan responsibility into the future. those to me seem to be very clear. and i know our military commanders will take those and build on them. and then do measures of effectiveness to say how are we going over the next year, year and a half and evaluate all of that as we go forward. i understand the frustration about 9/11. i would hope that would go forward, whatever needs to be

done. we have troops committed now. and we have some, i think, a clear signal by the president of support of the national security team. i would hope the american people could try to give our troops the support they need to carry out the objectives given to them by the president. and we'll measure it up to july 11th, 2011, and then make some decisions there. but i for one having been in this for a long time, am optimistic here that the military and the afghan government, if they get their act together, they can pull it off. >> your bigger concern though is what? >> the legitimacy of the afghan government as we go forward. can they rise to the occasion, and karzai in particular, and build capacity in this government to gain legitimacy with their own people? that's the challenge. and that's why i think we are going to see more pushed down to the level of 34 providences or

states in afghanistan. but president karzai has a real mission here. to clean up his act, if i can be that blunt, and provide this sort of leadership for all afghan people to build a better future, to take this opportunity, which is an opportunity for him, and build on it. if he doesn't do it, then his country, the afghan people, and the entire region, which includes two nuclear powers, and india and china. all of that region then becomes unstable. and i think that's not an afghan's best interest. that's not in the united states or region interest or the world. >> former nato commander, west point graduate, general george joulwan, thank you. please come back any time. >> thank you. okay. >>

>> as we get better and better, we run the risk of all of the confidence and arrogant. >> four of malcolm's book sit on the "new york times" best sellers list, including the latest, "what the dog saw." he's our guest on c-span's q and a. >> topics at the state department briefing include nato's role in afghanistan, and the start nuclear disarmorment treaty between the u.s. and russia. spokesman kelly speaks with reporters for about a half an hour.

>> okay. good morning. the secretary had, obviously, a very busy day today in brussels. she had meetings with the nato secretary general, and she participated in several meetings of north atlantic council. nato foreign ministers with isef contributing natos. there was a meeting of the nato russian council as well. it was a very productive day. they endorsed the president's strategy and approach toward afghanistan. 25 countries pledge to do more in terms of troops, trainers, and trust fund contributions.

nato and their isaf partners pledged 7,000 more troops. we expect that there will be several thousand more likely in the near future. isaf countries also began a discussion on improving civilian coordination with an eye to agree on the mechanisms by the time of the london conference in january. in addition, nato countries and russia formally restarted the nato-russia council by the first meetings since december of 2007. they also agreed to some restructuring of the nic. and a work program for 2010. secretary had a number of bilateral meetings as she met with uk foreign secretary, polish foreign minister,

norwegian foreign minister, georgian foreign minister, russian foreign minister, and she had her first meeting with the new eui rep. in the latter meeting, they talked about afghanistan, like all of the meetings. they also had a chance to talk about the very important meetings next week related to the eu. it'll be the first meeting of foreign ministers for the new eu high rep, lady ashton. and in addition to the european council meeting, which of course was the summit meeting. and as i said, they discussed afghanistan. but they also discussed iran. because we expect that the iranian issue will be addressed in the eu council meeting.

and there will be a brood discussion on next steps in that meeting. i also have an announcement regarding travel of undersecretary bill burns. he will travel to beijing december 8 and the 9. he will then travel to indonesia on december 10th and 11th, for consults with senior indonesian officials on expanding cooperation on areas of mutual interest as discussed during president obama's recent meeting the indonesia president. he will also lead the u.s. observer democracy forum, which is an important indonesian led initiative to promote reform throughout the region. and that's all that i have.

i have your questions on this friday afternoon. >> about how long were the meetings that the secretary have? sounds like they couldn't have been very long. >> given the constraint of time, i think they all were fairly brief. somewhere around 10 to 15 minutes. >> what were the 25 countries that pledged troops? >> i don't have that list in front of me right now. >> can you give us an idea? >> yeah, no, i don't have that list. we'll have to get that from nato. >> do you know if the list exists? >> no, i don't know if that list exists. i need to get it from nato. >> on the same subject, can you tell us what these pledges and commitments are? are these commitments to the united states can take to the bank in terms of troops that

will be provided? >> i think that these pledges were made in general terms. i think in various categories. and i think the three main categories of course are troops and trainers and then pledges of contributions to various trust funds that nato administers in afghanistan. i think what the plan is to put more details on these contributions both in the force generation conference which is monday, but i think more particularly at the conference in london in january. so i don't think that there were a lot of specifics per se. but certainly, it was a -- there were some -- it was a very

significant meeting in terms of the pledges. and i think we're all pleased with the way that our allies and partners have stepped up to support the president's new approach. >> what's the risk that some of these countries whether for internal political reasons or otherwise may back done? >> well, we're focusing on that. and let me back you down. i think in some cases they need to get parliamentary approval especially for deployments. i don't think that i would characterize it as backing down. i think we do expect to have a lot more specific details by the january meeting. >> do you represent the force conference? >> i think it's being chaired by

the military side of nato. what we used to call s.h.a.p.e., it's now called something else. at any rate, it'll be at the level of military representatives to the nato military committee. who will represent us? i don't have that information. i believe it is the level of ministers. >> the russian and u.s. are speaking. can you describe in what more troops to afghanistan may not be scheduled. but what is nato confident that the measures for the people which think that the taliban may be better than this?

[inaudible] >> and the levels for we move for this not for the troops? what do you think we're going to do to deal with the people at the afghanistan level? >> i don't think we would disagree with that characterization. i think we would agree that it is important that we try and enhance the confidence that the afghan people have in our effort. and particularly in the effort of the afghan government to have a more accountable and -- to be more accountable and responsive. to be able to provide for security of their people, and be able to deliver the kind of

services that people in any democratic system should expect. so that is an important part of our whole effort. the military part is very important. because all of these services can't be provided unless people feel secure. and people will not believe in the democratic and more prosperous future unless they feel that they and their families are safe. so this is a very good discuss about overall efforts. >> afghanistan feels that billions of dollars. but none of it is coming to them. [inaudible] >> how can anybody deal with

more of the people of not only to -- >> we have a real responsibility not only to the afghanistan people but not american responsibility to ensure that the money that we are investing ends up in the hands of the people for whom it's intended. i think that's the effort in afghanistan. it's probably one of the most comprehensive efforts undertaken in terms of ensuring that our official does end up in the right hands. and account on the process for the education pendture of the money. you pointed out another issue.

but we'll share these same kind of concerns. >> well, i don't think there was any hard and fast target. i think as i suggested earlier, i think that we -- this is not an end to sudden thousand of troops that have been effected in war. but more contributions of getting closer to the january conference. >> i think more on the troops, the troops are already there. and the troops are committed and pledges. some of those operate on various restrictions about how they can function. how is that for contributing to the united states if some of these existing troops are limited in where and how?

>> our policy on this has been pretty clear. that we think that any commander should be able to command these troops in the way that he or she feel appropriate. but this should be able for the kind of missions. having said that, there are many different roles that isaf has given the nations to play. that for the comment for more of a stability providing function that we need for training with

the focus to the afghan national police provided that while we feel that these troops have come in should be as we say caveat, meaning shorthand for restrictions and the troops. the number of missions for isaf in many ways is especially in areas that are described as training and sort of basic security and state stabilization provideing security. yes? >> we're waiting to see what

sort of people will be there and how far along? how many afghan troops will need to be trained? can you tell us how and when the assessments will be made from the afghan security forces have been established? >> i think it would be difficult for me to give that kind of level. i think that's something general mcchrystal will have to provide. i think that would span within nato/isaf contact. i'm not trying to diminish the importance of that. i just -- i don't -- >> what about other benchmarks? are there any other government situations? when and how would those assessments be made before january? >> well, we -- yeah. i don't know if january 28th necessarily is the deadline for

that. but as i suggested earlier, we want to make sure that the assistance that we provide and that our international donors provide end up in the right place and is delivered and transparent along the way. i think one the ways that we're going to achieve this is by reviewing individual ministries in kabul and sharing these ministries that we have lock solid accountability to keep it in place, and minimize the risk of anyone be desserted or not. >> is there a time on that? >> you know, that's a good question. i'm not sure that -- again, what

we have here is no confirmed timetables. this is a real big priority. we are going to work with afghan to develop accountability procedures that any democratic government should have. we are going to be certificated already on a number of things. one more? >> is it possible with these numbers of poland and italy and much heralded announcement to say these are caveat three or sought to be? >> you know, i don't know. i think that we'll have to see how exactly what kind of troops are provided, what roles we'll have. i'm not sure of the answer.

>> next step. >> yeah, i said the secretary spoke with lady ashton about the meeting. about having a discussion. >> when will the secretary have discussions with the chinese and russian counterparts? >> well, she did meet with foreign minister on that report. and a brief meeting, as i said, i think that even mostly focused on afghanistan. i'm not sure, i don't know if they discussed iran. she also spoke by phone earlier. so we have had discussion.

bill burns is regular, i want to say daily, regular, frequent conversations. it's more of the director's thoughts. and i would expect that in china -- i would expect the brood range of issues following up by presidents of china, russia, primarily focusing on the economic mission in copenhagen. the climate change this year. but of course they will talk about iran too. this is the major focus. it is a difficult time for iran. so i do think -- >> are there specific sanctions? >> well, you know they are not going to talk about the specific

things. some of the military, obviously we are -- we're also -- we were looking at the health tracks for shifting. to see if that is possible. it's given us a targeted answer. and we're going to go ahead and focus -- shifting our focus. >> without getting into the sanctions, are the five powers around sanction? any specific kind of concern? >> you know, i really. frankly, i don't have that information. even if i did, i don't think i would tell you. to be perfectly honest. >> maybe my notes are wrong. but these -- she -- meaning secretary, when she talked to lady ashton, she talked about brood and special stuff with her, or what i thought you said

was that at the eu meetings next week there would be a brood discussion? >> i can't say what they talked about. >> maybe they -- >> they talked about the importance of this meeting. >> can you repeat what you said at the top about that line? >> oh, i don't have a prepared text that i use. but what -- >> what i understand that the iranian issue would be addressed at the eu council meeting. >> yes, expect them to take up the issue of -- >> so the secretary -- right, but the secretary didn't have that discussion with lady ashton? >> they talked about the importance of the meeting. >> right. but they did not -- they didn't discuss the next steps? >> i -- >> that you know of. >> they talked about these two meetings which ever -- >> which will discuss.

>> eu will have a written statement on iran. >> can you give as an insight as to what has agreed on? >> yeah. i can yeah -- i can talk in general terms about it. if you don't want to talk too specific to the negotiations that are ongoing. but basically, we have made some good progress, it's fair to say that we have kind of a basic framework, and major provisions of the treaty. both parties want to agree to a new treaty that's fully corresponds to their national security interest as soon as they can. i think that you've seen the two president that is have committed coming up with the text bit end

of this month. as with all of the negotiations, they have been some very robust discussions about some of the differences that we have. i'm not going to go into the details with those differences. but both sides agree that we need to resolve these in the next few weeks. we're committed to working through this. the negotiations are going to continue at least for the next week, maybe even beyond. and this is probably -- weevils all seen the statement that the two sides put out where both sides pledge not to take anymore measures that would undermine the strategic and stability that start has provided. during the period of the

expiration of the treaty, which will be at 7 p.m. tonight, to bring that area on the entry. which will take some months. because they have to go through a ratification process, both on russian and here in the senate. >> two things. so you don't think that there will be anything ready to sign for next week for the president? >> i'm not going to preclude possibility that we could have an agreement draft by next week. but i'm certainly not going to raise any kind of expectations. >> i just want to ask. so i know my understanding a number of your mounters, are

they going back now? >> no, the ones that -- with the start treaty, there has been one in place. >> right. they've left already. >> they have left. i think the last one left today. >> and are they going back now? >> there no plans for him to go back. >> well, that's a very specific monitoring one. but we have means to be able to monitor them. the compliance with the treaty. >> satellite system? >> we have national, technical rules.

>> not everything, no. there are certain things that are legally must be read about and put in here. but we're confident that we have the kind of measures in place to be able to monitor and compliance and monitor russian strategic alliance. spell that? botkinsk. >> also given here and there, but when the prime minister says, what was he doing improvising on this time also in the support? >> uh-huh. first of all, let me just make

some comments on the the -- on the attacks. we extend our sympathy to today's attacks, and to the families in terms of those who lost their lives in these attack. these attacks highlight the vicious nature of the enemy. pakistan and security of all pakistan, you don't have any information of any americans were injured in this. and i just highlight the -- the need for us to support the government of pakistan and fight this common enemy, and this common challenge that we have. and we will continue to support them. we can fight this terrible

surge. >> secretary clinton, did he do the request and support of the sanctions? [inaudible] >> yeah. let me just clarity exactly what we are talking about here. secretary her reference to classified annex was the reference to a body of certain classes that were used in the creation of the sudan strategy, that was approved by the interagency process. the secretary and the administration have authorized special envoy to discuss all such documents with members of congress and cleared staff as we deem appropriate.

so i think it's just a matter of definition. annex and body of documents. but there is a coddy of -- body of documents under classifiation. well, he said what he said. >> yesterday i asked mark about cambodia. did you get an answer to that? >> no, i didn't get an answer to that. basically i think what we told you yesterday is our -- >> well, you told me nothing yesterday. >> we're not going to tell you anything today. it's a matter of policy. >> that's not my question. that's great that you don't as a matter of policy. but that's not my question. do you think that these leaders should be deported to china? >> i don't think it's -- i don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss this case. >> oh, can i ask why it wouldn't

be appropriate? considering that you guys have taken a great interest in leaders? >> i'm not trying to diminish any particular case without reference to this particular -- >> are you suggesting that the u.s. might be interested in offering? >> i'm not suggesting anything. i'm just saying i'm not going to comment. >> i don't understand why not. surely, you speak out when people are going to be -- as the matter of policy, the administration opposes sending prisoners, and won't to countries where they might be persecuted. i don't see why it's inappropriate to you to talk about this case, these 22 people. >> i'm not going to talk about. yes? >> sorry, ambassador today expressed strong concerns on the

japanese and about the review. do you have any further to say on this today? >> just that i know that the working group is meeting. it began meeting yesterday. and of course it is headed by ambassador john, from the personnel from washington who are also participating in it. and we -- we are -- we are happy to help the japanese government assist in this review of their policy. thank you. >> as we get better and better of what we do, we run the risk of confidence and arrogant. >> four of malcolm's book sit on the best sellers list. including the latest, "what the dog saw" on c-span q