combat engineers and routt clearance and part and parcel of the package thanks to the efforts of this committee in the funding has been the elevated line of sight which would be the persistent ground surveillance, some of it on the camera and on the elevating telescopic polls from the vehicles, some of it tethered balloons, some of it mandy and some of it on man. so all of our isr capabilities provide us the eyes and ears that we need to since the environment there. and if you look at the sources of the fire and the casualties, the indirect fire in afghanistan is not what it was an iraq. it is the ieds that's the largest component first and then the small arms fire and things like the grenades second, it's not indirect fire but the assessment process in iraq and afghanistan are identical, sir. ..

we have isr task force here, which is pushing all those assets forward, again manned and unmanned. we have a task force which is our ied over there, and we are looking to get both full motion video and manned and unmanned aerial vehicles up there so we can detect movement of the enemy and movement of perhaps the sympathetic local nationals that may be either scaling or putting an ied's, so i think that

capability is there and as i mentioned a minute ago some of this is just a leg as we increase our footprint on the ground. we are surging with them and bringing behind extra eyes and ears that will do the exact same things in afghanistan as we did in iraq. >> do we have more of these uavs's currently in iraq than in afghanistan? >> if i could take that for the record and get back to you sir because we are drawing down obviously and iraq. we are trying to keep sufficient amount they are to cover what will be, our advise-and-assist brigade that stay behind. there's a difference in the geometry of the battlefield. some folks would believe that as you drive down, the boots on the ground, you could draw down all all the extra enablers and that may not be the case, as general odierno have articulated, that you still need extra eyes and ears out there because you don't have the physical presence on the ground so we are trying to strike a balance between how

quickly we can drawdown in iraq and how much they can build up in afghanistan. some of it is the traditional forces. in other cases we need them and both so we are procuring more thanks to the effort of the committee to buy more full motion video and oir indifferent things like that, sir. >> it seems to me and iraq where we pulled the troops out of the city, and there are more in reserve positions right now where in afghanistan we are on the offense, and it seems like to me, i am not a military expert, such as general petraeus and general mcchrystal and yourself, but i would like to see those numbers, because it seems to me that more of those enablers might-- in my humble opinion should be where we are on the offense and where we have more troops actually in the line of fire right now. >> yes sir, and i will take that for the record and certainly get you the numbers and then the actual discussion of how many

and where they go, we can certainly do that in closed session if you would like sir. >> thank you rematch. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. ortiz. >> thank you mr. chairman, secretary for knight and general paxton. thank you for being here and providing your thoughts on security and stability of afghanistan. a few days ago it was announced that the united united states we sending an additional 850 soldiers and marines to train local security forces in afghanistan from approximately 90 to 120 days. these trainers are seen as a stopgap yet there is still a charge of plans conducting this critical mission. the way out of afghanistan is to have capable local security forces. what is needed to fill this critical shortage of trainers? i think this is one of the big problems that we have. and how are our allies filling

these critical shortages, and how will the choice of trainers affect the handover to local forces? maybe you can enlighten us a little bit on that. >> i think the institutional trainers for the afghan national security forces, and then having mentoring teams, what we call omelettes out in the field to continue that training and leadership development as they actually operate. that really is a sort of intent of our future success. this is absolutely critical to building capacity. as we seek to grow bnsf and improve its quality, the requirements for the training, that training capacity has gone up. we have been pushing our allies to step up up with us to meet those new requirements, and any of them are doing so.

it remains a work in progress. we have not-- we have made progress toward that goal. general paxton may have some of the specific numbers but we are not all the way there yet. the u.s. forces, the bridge, is simply to try to meet some of the near-term requirements as we continue to recruit our nato allies to step up with additional trainers, but we don't want to lose time. so we wanted to go ahead and plug the near-term gap, and get general caldwell who is the ahead and take some additional resources to continue the momentum in these very important efforts. i don't know if you want to add any comments. >> thank you man. yes sir, obviously the training of the police and the afghan national army are a critical function, not just critical but critical functions we have to accomplish so general caldwell is over there with the nato training mission formerly-- and

we have sent additional u.s. forces over to assist them, almost to belgrade teams worth to do training for the army army and police. nato has had almost three to 4000 more since the president's announcement in december, but we would like to get additional nato contributions there and some of the nato members perhaps we look at their combat footprint to see if we can change those into trainers and enablers. so what we have done and what your comment reflects there is that in the short-term we still have a pressing need for trainers and we are waiting for long-term solutions that we have sent an army battalion and three increments of marines over there to fill that gap in the short-term, sir. >> i remember we had a high-- of awol's. has that gone down some? are we still having the problem we had before were they just wouldn't come in? >> there is minute mark a change since december in terms of both their absenteeism which has gone

down and then their reenlistment and retention rate which is gone up so it is not only in the short-term in terms of showing up for duty but in the long-term in terms of their commitment. some of this is due to success on the ground and some of it is due to change in their pay structure but we believe these are both good news story sir. >> it is encouraging to see that we are beginning to get tips from the local citizens as to where to locate some of the ied's and staff. what about the training camps? i mean, do we have any knowledge? are we getting any tips on the training camps because we see, just like the other day, naturalized citizen from the united states goes down there to train and-- is that hard to detect the training camp where they are training the enemy? >> i don't have some of the tactical specifics at my fingertips are but a obviously these are safe havens in sanctuaries and sometimes they are indeed difficult to find. the more that you build

confidence in the local populace and the more they tell you routes that you have freedom of movement on our areas where you should not go or they help you detect ied's eventually you get to the point where you can say, who lives in this neighborhood and they will take you to other areas. so we watch it very closely, sir. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. bartlett please. >> thank you very much. want to return to the coffee shop across the country. there are two other questions being asked. the first is, why is not the afghan war the ultimate exercise in utility? because even if we do at no one else has ever done, alexander the great, the british empire and the soviet empire even if we can accomplish what none of them have ever accomplished it won't make any difference they say because the bad guys will simply going to pakistan. then if we spend i don't know how many more billions of dollars in how many more dead included kids to drive them out of there, they will go to somalia and yemen.

it is quite clear that we cannot deny them sanctuary, so why is this not the ultimate exercise in futility? it is noted that they frequently, the citizens there choose the harsh movement of the taliban compared to the corrupt rule of the karzai government and our very presence there recruits the enemy. there were essentially no al qaeda in iraq before we went there and then there were a lot of al qaeda there after we were there. i asked the state department where they imported, they said most of them were in fact de novo so our presence there creates the enemy. the second question is, why are we following osama bin laden's playbook? this is a hugely asymmetric war. mohammed with a rusty artillery sharing a few dollars worth of electronics and just one of our responses to that have cost us $40 billion. that is mrap's, one platform in response to that. osama bin laden is on the record as saying they will continue

this guerrilla kind of war until they bleed us dry. so two questions please, weiss is not the ultimate exercise in futility and why are we following osama bin laden's playbook? >> congressman congressman in response to the first question i would draw a very sharp between the historical experience of many in afghanistan who were there to conquer, versus our mission in afghanistan which is to enable the development of afghan capacity to exert sovereignty, go over their own, over their own territory. i think your point about pakistan has informed the fact that we have taken a regional strategy. we need to pressure al qaeda and its associates and deny them safe haven on both sides of the border comment that is is exactly what our strategy is designed to do. support for the taliban in afghanistan is quite week. very little popular support, and

that creates great opportunity for us to help develop and afghan institution and capacity that are a viable alternative for the population. and in terms of osama bin laden, again i would just say that we don't have the option of allowing al qaeda to have freedom of movement and sanctuary, given the threat they pose to our homeland and to our vital interests abroad. and i think that if you look at the totality of our campaign, on both sides of the afghan-pakistan border, and globally, we are having tremendous success in putting pressure on this network, and disrupting their operations and denying their ability to launch spectacular attacks. so, i think that we have to take a global perspective and i think the strategy is actually bearing

a great deal of fruit at this time. >> the questioner notes that in iraq we actually increase the number of the enemy. are very presence there did that admitted by the state department, and assuming success in afghanistan and pakistan, they will simply go to somalia and yemen. it is clear that we cannot deny them sanctuary, so the question still remains why is this not the ultimate exercise in futility, assuming success? >> again, sir, i think the facts suggest that we are debilitating the network, we are putting pressure on the networks on a global basis. and that denying them sanctuary is critical to preventing their ability to attack our homeland and attack our interests and our forces and our allies abroad.

>> a second question, why are we following osama bin laden's playbook in this hugely asymmetric war? >> sir i would differ with you. i don't believe we are following is playbook or go actually, is playbook isn't working so well in terms of advancing al qaeda's aims right nowãnow. >> thank you, i yielda's aims right now. >> thank you, i yield back. >> the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor. >> mr. chair i'm going to yield my time and. >> mr. murphy is recognized. >> thank you. i am over here. it is hard to tell when we yield around where we are going. i want to look a little bit for direction as to where this is all headed. i was in kandahar two months ago on the ground talking to people that were there, very impressed with their efforts and what we are trying to do to stabilize the area and provide security there but one of the things that jumped out at me was where it is to go from there? i have no doubt our soldiers can provide security and get on the

street so they can drive the taliban away but where's the next open one that really stuck out to me, some of the locals said to me we don't have any reliable electricity. we don't have an economy, we t so't ruxtur businesses. i can have you made with 20 local businessman who cannot run their factories because there is no electricity. there were 2 megawatts for the bus to pe city ofadedd. based needs 10 to 12 megahertz a day so we are sitting there trying to prareade seidity and also at night lighting up this boardwalk of broadway liidis and the peking e are saying we can't get any power but you guys have it over there. where is the nee' that so we ldivide security but then what happens to let people start to function in that environment to allow us to get away and to go next, and they get specifically do we have a plan for eleliabicity in the local econoy there? >> sir, i would like to come backget r the record with a more detailed answer on the specifics of rectrical king eer generation

foradedd. my understanding though is that is part of the larger planget r that area. i think the real shift we have seen coming out of our, the strategy review when we are putting ag aitional civilian resources on the ground alongsa ae our soubbt is that we have had much more integrated civil military planning where we, in designing our coualorinsur. y campaign for an area, we are actually harnes rug the development piece to suppo un the establishment of more were credible and capable afghan government-- governance at the whecal and provincial level. my understanding is that this is a rehy is reduyed and it is pan of a longer-term plan for that area, but i would like toswt re?k to yogeon theto gecific details if i may. >> sir, i will join with the secretary andswt back with you on specifics but as some of you know there is this-- in southern afghanistan.

>> three years before the power will impact is. >> urica- and that tha hes pfic of a wheng-term plan. we can develop areas like that. >> is a thpecifi years before we think that govercrece is coming? before there is electricity to have an ecdon''t ha is hard to imagine peking e will start to y this government is really working for us to does that mean it is our redetaionsibility for that long? >> we authority move some . rator cauthity into the area but it is a slow process that develops. this is theto glonficg aif of te timeline between let me get the generators and then when infon thestructure is in place m in a power surge to deliver. >> i use is more vague bigger point, which was what i also is was that we have got a catch-22. they can'tswt the cr supbility to build popular support behind their government unt hadthey can betivebuifor peking e. we aren't comfortable letting them deliver any other forr aent wo an retil they stop having the corruption problems they have because we save we don't wainf we are not going to crecve you the money because we think you are going to steal

. >alal great but if we provide security and your development foting us e doing the development why would anybody turn to us. three to the taliban, and forge theanybghan gover3 ment, so what i want to understand is how are we going to make that trcorour,on, how are we going toswt to the point where the afghan governments are on that hat and we are atuthiast two if not tspe or four. >> i think two points that i itld maonomninge that are very this-ort wou issues you are rac. one is to make sure that the prt priorities in an area are more tightly integrated into the overall campaign plan for that area. inadedd. process is starting to happen more than as in the past so i think you are going to see a realignment of some of our development efforpoin to ounde closely sue are un the secand id

governance objectives. >> so are we stfic ounde devel steent morup to the afghan government in the region? >> the second is bad we are hking muver.e s by muver.e s to develop the internal capacity so that they can receive actarynt for, track and be actaryntable for pulling money through the minist@ p, so we have set ourpaives a serieg aif progressive goals to flow more and more assistance through the keyanybdeveln muver.tries, but t require certifying them to be able to handle that in an accon thlly the process of doing that. i think we have done our,o or three and we will do anheirer oo or three in the next coming months. >> my time has expired butare we taryldswt the metrics for how that certification works, i'm really interested in thces3 ptall seal corruption and against and how weswt ourselves out of being the ones doing the nation-building and that the

afghans buthe a their own natio. >> u thank theswntlemamet mr. jones. >> mr. chairman thank you ve@ p much andbandam seemamory, . ral paxton thank you for being here today, and i would ct e to stfic 't ha questions by reading an e-mail i got recently from gotmondswneral that i have tremendous respect for. the only real shot we have of o p so owof sureal elop has ben we haars of stity afghan army and police. a ve@ p tough thing to do. uri rid of corrung thon in the government, good luck with that front. not to drive the taurityan into the arms of local populations. it was a fairly long e-mail that ira not at liberty to say his name, but i e-mailed him because

i am very concerned ab, and f rs of engtorsement. i had had a conversation with the father of this marine who useme,illed, e-hn bepmeard,. then i go back to another article in marine times, left to die, thnanc caive dget r help. that was your army leadership refusing the battlefield. i realirec you ares. the confidens hand the support of the afghan people, but i go re?k to the coffeeshop that the al cirman told us about. i hear this frequently back home in the third district of north carare gina. on the camp lejeune marine base on the airget rceour people are wonderings. if you don't have input, this is beginning to soqued like the

pre lejous addelistslion, in irq or go you brief the congress and surm not being crour,cal. i want you to fully rederstand that. you brief the congress and well youme,now, we ar@ p all tiously optimistic. we are going down this road and thatis ct e we arebanking progress. i am sure we are making some ldigreelop . i don't doubt that that i will tell you that reading this article in "newsweek", scandal andanybdevelver.tan. thetifclusive story of how we have wasted $6 billion, dow biloamet a coy rcar andve@me,nveficgficge force that may cost us the war. i really want tos. , and fnew is chairs a year, two years, three for areto gendingo ullions and trillions in a 14th century

country. where coy rng thon, that we cans control is getting some of our people are invited overgire. we can't evento geak thed r language hardly. so the point is, at what point wilus ayouwe haay to t wan cong. do you believe you can say, we are at the point that we have one the endpo el ofnewat we are e sing to achieve, because madam secretary, i feel for this admini poito hion as well. ibande that point. this is something they inherited and we have to fire. terrorisdo3 aro cof the world, but sticking 100,000 of our troops over in afghanistan andinvkinng them,arw theyce reelop you from the let you shoot back and if they fire at you from theionsre. you don't ucot. that is not fair to these kids and it is not toowithir to thga parentt wives and husbands. i guess that is the question.

>> senator i'm going touthit . ral pacorrunirmdreelop irmdressd the particulars of the rules of engpacment because thnanc thinki is moreng a engb,d to do that, but let me first take on your canhyn,newderh i ths ov is cofking stanticubto hand real t the challenges of capacity bs. afghanistan is a coquetry that has been in and out of war for 30"non tha. in that> ind of en lejronment corruption can take root in a society writ large. it is a problemget r other tary,urits in the region as wel. i think we are seeing renewed comgresstmenpoin to de engng . ythink wan ldiblem on the afghan side.

we are t@ ping to chap incentive structures that have motivated coy rng thon in the pasrene you areionsre., it used to be that police did not pick a living waat that rit en wouldban0,a living wage by policing the local population. pmealpmealpmealpmeall we have to move along, but go

ahead. >> thank you are. congressman jones there is absolutely nothing in the tactical directive that prohibits or limits any service member, marine, soldier from appropriate self-defense. what is in the directive is the conscious application of close air support to make sure that it is not a target or something that poses self-defense that you have done due diligence in terms of assessing collateral damage, whether it is for infrastructure or for children, for noncombatants, but there is nothing in there that prohibits either the commander or the individual holder from doing what he needs to do on the ground. >> dr. schneider please. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you all for being here or go once again. you are regulars here in the last few days. i want to talk about resources. secretary flournoy you had talked about that earlier. i remember general jack keane

testified, now retired, that when he was chief of staff of the army in the end of 2002 resources began being moved out of afghanistan in anticipation of the march 03 invasion of iraq. his recollection was that was utterly. then we began hearing almost privately from the commandant at them former marine-- made the comment that we have a policy of clear, hold and build but we only have enough troops to clear. we don't have enough troops to hold and build. secretary gates from the bush administration made some comments that he was concerned about the troop strength. mr. king has referred to the december 2007 statement by admiral mullen. my concern is that the continued discussion as if we are still in that mindset. the ranking member opening statement refers to a have not mentality. is there have not mentality that

would be permeating our military commanders making-- thinking they don't have adequate resources? >> that is certainly not my impression. i think general mcchrystal's assessment was to tell us what he thought he needed to be the priority mission and to get the mission right, and i think when you look at the u.s. forces that have been put in and the nato forces that are being committed, the afghan forces that are being grown, he believes he has what he needs to do the mission. and i think one of the things that secretary gates has always said is, we have to make sure that we balance our approach here, that i'm the one hand you want to make sure you have enough forces in afghanistan to ensure that you don't fail in the mission. on the other hand, you don't want to go overboard and become, come to be seen as a force of occupation. so we have listened to general mcchrystal very carefully and what he told congress in

december and what he continues to say is that he believes he is getting the resources to carry out his mission at this point. i don't know if you have anything to add. >> again, part of assessment and try to figure out what you need both by people and their resources and when you needed and where you needed him a constant risk assessment. i think most members in uniform, if you asked them how much do you need the answer would always be more because the more you have, the less risk you have to assume that we try to constantly assess how many people we have and what types of capability we have and then does that sufficiently mitigate the risk, and it said they most likely or in most dangerous course of action that you are going to mitigate against. and secondly sir, as we look to increase the capability and the capacity of the afghan forces to make sure that, as they shoulder more of a burden and we can requisite stand down and do perhaps less. we teach them, we show them and we lead them and then we turn it over to them.

>> i appreciate your sentiment today. i hope if that were to change six months, year, 18th-- 18 months from now that you did not have the resources you need i hope you would express the same level of candor. i yield back mr. chairman. >> mr. turner please. >> thank you mr. chairman. i thank both of you for being here today. i have two questions. one concerning the troop cabinet and one concerning drug trafficking. the first question general paxton is directed at you and it is building on mr. mckeon's statement and other questions that other members have had during this hearing. people are very concerned about our ability to be successful as we are looking at the constraints you are operating under. so the question is, what enablers that nato allies and the afghan security forces relying on for the new united states to provide and how has the troop cap of 30,000 impacted

our ability to support the u.s. allied forces and the afghans? as isaf coalition add 4500 of perhaps 9000 troops pledged in conjunction with the u.s. surge and his afghan security forces grow how are we ensuring that our troops, the allies in the afghans will have access to the enablers that they need? >> thank you sir. we have looked very closely at the enablers and no surprise that, when the u.s. comes not only do we bring the preponderance of the forces but we bring the preponderance of the enablers, so we have more aviation be it from lift or for medevac. we have more engineers for route clearance, so when you go to our nato allies in the coalition forces, you look for them to bring a requisite share of those capabilities that they are able. secretary gates just spoke at istanbul several weeks ago and offered that we would take a look at our obligations, which this committee rightfully told

us to take a look at in iraq several years ago to make sure that, by resourcing allied and coalition partners we don't necessarily jeopardize u.s. forces first curt. we are at the point now with our production of mraps and are equipment on the ground that we can take a look at those capabilities that we could either share with partners or offer to sell to them are put in the mfs program so there is an increased capacity and willingness on the part of allies to fund for themselves, to source for themselves and then we also have the capability of sharing with them in areas where we are partnered together. >> everyone continues to be concerned about how those resources came out of a total resources that are applied and whether or not we have sufficient response to meet our needs. on december 21, 2006, the atlantic council, general jones

stated that the a kealy's heel is the narcotics problem. general john suggested solution has to be broad if not one thing, there is no recipe for this, not just eradication, not substitution but a lot of things can be combined to begin to wean the economy. or specifically had called for one a judicial system that is functional, two police reform, three involvement of the afghan government, for extending the reach of the afghan government of pakistan. i know that when we look at at the issue of the drug trade we have to be concerned about how do we address the issue of the money, the cash that flows through the drug trade. the transportation routes for drugs themselves. the labs that are producing the drugs. the fields themselves, where we need to look for an economic shift. part of the problem has been a lack of an assessment of a complete to-do list and then execution of of the to-do list.

according to a recent report by the national security council, a new u.s. counternarcotic strategy for afghanistan has been approved to my understanding and has not been briefed on this new strategy and that we don't have back here for our staff. i'm very concerned about this and what can you tell us about this new strategy? i would like to hold up this chart. this is a crs report chart that shows the afghan drug trade. as you can see, the last four years and if you folded in half you can see what the normal production is up narcotics. the last four years have been their own surge, the narcotics search and that is really i believe the root of what we have been facing facing in afghanistan. as we try to address the issues in afghanistan but don't address this drug trade we are going to continue to fund a few our adversaries. what can you add to that discussion please? >> we did refine our

counternarcotic strategy is part of the review. and i'm happy to invite our-- to come up in brief this committee if you have not been adequately briefed. narcotics is a key funding stream for the insurgency. we have established a threat finance velvet looks at the nexus of narcotics in the insurgency, to go after that. we have also helped train afghan forces that are specifically focused on drug interdiction. we have crop substitution programs underway to try to transition farmers to look at crops. wewe are focusing infrastructure development to make sure that once farmers grow grow illicit crops that can actually get them to market, and so forth. i think in areas where this has come together, for example you have seen a drop in poppy production. rc south is the new area of focus, what we will be putting up elements in place to make the

same kind of progress there but we would be happy to come back up and brief you, sir. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from connecticut. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary flournoy, and answering mr. skelton's question, you have a definition is victory as the point at which afghanistan has the capacity to assert taliban safe haven, which really seeks in my mind to prioritize the need to get the functioning, security forces. the "new york times" yesterday quoted a pentagon report, which said that the most significant challenges is the fielding of qualifying-- and i know mr. ortiz touch on this earlier but again, the story list of the fact that nato and u.s. agreed to 5200 trainers last january. there are 2700 there today. all but 300 are u.n. and

secretary gates has been working hard to try and extract the bodies that were committed. but at the same time we are flowing 30,000 forces, and clearly this is so important, to have the trainers there. i mean, at some point it seems that we should just do it and stop sort of waiting for that commitment to materialize, and why a are you, and? >> the decision to deploy the additional u.s. forces as a bridge mechanism is the cause of the immediate gap which is needed now. we want to continue to incentivize our partners to step up with additional training contributions but this is a priority and we will plug those gas. the other thing that really makes the difference here is the

shift in general mcchrystal's strategy which puts an emphasis on partnering so that every ama unit, every afghan police unit has an isaf or u.s. partner. that is continuing to training in the field, mentoring, doing leadership development, and so there is the institutional training piece which is critical, but the partnering is where you are really going to float further develop your force and his competency to take leadership over time. so that is an area of focus, and we are putting about as much energy as can possibly be put on this, i'm closing this gap, sir. >> the training is holistic too so we are looking to train the ministries as well as the police in the armed forces and within the police, the local police, the ancop so it is across-the-board. we wreck nice in addition to the training in general and across

the board in specific there is a unique requirement to train leadership so one of the things we want to do is get u.s. forces and then allied and nato coalition force trainers there to concentrate on nco training in officer training also to serve. >> to you? challenge the numbers in terms of, again the commitment that was made and where we are today? >> i don't have the specific numbers. we know there is a gap between what was place in what is shown up and that is why the bridging solution is in there. the 850 that was alluded to is indeed part of an army battalion and then increment of marines that are going over there, the chief of the staff of the army said these are available and ready and kelp-- and help the bridging solution and some of those have a backfill mechanism so if by the end of their normal

tenure we had three months, four months, six months we don't have the l.a. contribution contributions we can backfill again. we don't like to do that. we got like to get solutions from nato allies but we can do that, sir. >> i guess, and i am so, i understand your point that we want to extract those commitments that were made, deal us a deal. but on the other hand, the president's goal of 2011 as sort of a turnaround., and somebody who was over last week in lake connecticut national guardsmen who were hit by an ied easter sunday morning. waiting for a nato allies, time is the enemy and if the training piece is so critical, and getting to that point that you defined as sort of success, just seems that we should just do it. we should just move. >> sir, we will come back with a more forceful explanation but the gaps-- we are moving to

address those now, and the rest will follow over time. but we agree this is the priority, and we are working with-- to address it as quickly as possible. >> before i call on mr. klein, let me address the potential of kealy's heel-- achilles' heel that we have to overcome before we can use the word success or the word victory. in each of these is a serious potential achilles' heel. pick out, if you would, do one or two of the list i gave to you

that are the most serious. first, the corruption within the afghanistan government. next, bad governance of the afghan government. next, bad military strategy. next, the afghanistan security forces collapsing. next, pakistan refusing to help fight the al qaeda and the taliban. next, the lack of resources to the fighters. next, the lack of resolve with our military and their allies. next, the logistics route being shut down, and laugh, the

regional countries acting to undermine the afghan government and support the taliban. which of those concerns you the most? which could lead to defeat in not allowing us to use the word either success or a victory? madam secretary? >> sir, when i look at that long list, i think that actually we have the right military strategy in place, that the development is challenging but is moving in the right direction, that we are seeing pakistan step up to the fight, that we are putting the right level of resourcing against the problem and so forth so i think the ones that really will be the greatest challenges

longer-term are the involvement of regional, other regional stakeholders and ensuring that they do not interfere it and are undermine afghanistan's progress toward security and stability. and, i think overcoming decades of war to establish strong and good governance at all levels in afghanistan, not just at the national level but at the local level where most afghans actually experience their government. >> general? >> mr. chairman i wrote down the nine of them and i highlighted the same two that secretary flournoy did. they are all critical. they are all important. they all sometimes can appear tenuous but we have both the capability and capacity ourselves in the united states certainly with their allies in nato partners in the growing and capacity and capability with the

government afghanistan and the afghan security forces. i think we are well on our way to tackling five or six of those, so my biggest concern would be those that, for lack of a better term, the longest lead time before we see measures of success. so how they demonstrate good governance within the government of afghanistan and then how we get cooperation and support from regional actors and neighboring nations are the two that concern me the most, sir. >> thank you so much. mr. klein. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for joining us again so quickly after your last visit. i must say that i was surprised and pleased to hear from both of you in response to mr. mckeon's questions about a cap, a troop gap but there is no troop cap so i take it to mean from that that is general mcchrystal, general petraeus need another 5000 or 10,000 u.s. forces, that that is fine. that is something you would take

up. there is no cap and if they need them they go so i'm very pleased to hear that. that relates to a couple of other questions that i have. one, if for the record general, i think this would come from your shop, we understand that they were free force packages that are deploying to afghanistan and they contain combat forces and enablers, and if you could get for us to break down in those packages a combat combat force enablers answer, i hate to do this to you but we are going to mark up the mdaa next week so if you could get that for us this week for the record, i assume you have them already and we would like to see that. then, in light of the troop requirement, do we are to have a plan, either one of view, a plan in place to backfill the dutch canadian courses that are leaving in 2010 and 2011, and if you have a ready answer for that

i would take it now and if not i would be happy to take it for the record. because they want to get to another issue, again related i believe to the requirement for forces. that was raised by a think the ranking member and perhaps some others, and that is the joint urgent operational need that came from centcom, richly back in july of 2009 for warning and response capability. i want to focus on that and not force protection in the large. there was an urgent need that was identified back in july 2009 , and they worked their way up until march of this year, when general petraeus told this committee that they were exploring the use of contractors to meet some of the requirements contained in this. so my question is, has that been modified, and if so, why?

and is it true that we are looking at contractors because we either don't have a u.s. forces or decision has been made not to use them. i will tell you why i am really concerned about this is if we were to use the model we have in iraq we would have soldiers with a lot of that capability in place in our-- we have u.s. forces over there and i have a personal familiarity with that. my son happens to be not only in one of those the commanding one of them. we ought to be providing them with the security that they deserve, so the question is, are we looking at contractors and if so do we have a contract in place? if not, why not because we are possibly not providing force protection that we ought to be doing. >> yes sir. i will start with the juon and then i will see if we have time

if there is to go back to your other question on that. the juon is a process, and it is obviously requirements based in general petraeus did submit it. it is under review right now, sir. >> general this is an urgent need, right? that is the acronym. it is an urgent need. and i would think that force protection would indeed qualify as an urgent need, so i'm a little bit concerned about-- that this is a process that is dragging out and according to our understanding and that is what i'm getting at, are we still, hate to use the word dithering, but are we still wringing our hands over whether not we are going to use contractors and are we not getting a contract in place? the with that sir, i will take it for the record to find out exactly the status of the requirement and the thought process of who is best equipped whether it is military or civilian to actually work with the system, sir.

>> mr. kissell, please. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you madam secretary and general for being here today. following a little bit on some of the questions we had before, and we want to go back in time to go over year ago general field, commander cigar was here and told us basically we are making a lot of the same mistakes in afghanistan that we made in iraq in terms of not working with the local people and not giving the people what they needed. projects of the were not being properly surfer advised and i invited the general to come to my office for an update, and he reiterated a lot of the same problems, and and said we had made some progress and the general's quarterly report came out last week. i wonder if the general looked at data and where do we stand in terms of where the special

inspector general says we now are interacting with the afghan population? >> sir, i would say that one of the things we found coming into office was that development efforts in afghanistan were not fully harnessed to an overall strategy. there was a lot of good effort going in, but a lot of different countries contributing and a lot of different ways based on their own national goals for afghanistan. it wasn't all pulled together in a strategy and one of the real changes that we have seen under general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry and with the civilian surge is an integration to try to ensure that all of our development efforts, the international community are actually fully synchronized with ensign support of the governance and security objectives of the counterinsurgency campaign. and so that is something that has been happening over the last several months, and i think that

there are areas, particularly in the south and east where that is coming together in a much more integrated fashion, but given where we started, that is still a work in progress, but we are very much trying to respond to some of the insights and lessons learned that were in the sigar report. >> i think the comments made earlier that those afghans interact with local government, and this is where the report just seemed to show that we weren't paying attention, that we were building roads that could not be maintained, that we had energy projects that they either neither had the diesel fuel for, could not afford it or could not maintain it. there were several, i think it was 19 out of 36 governors that were saying we were not asking them their opinion before we did things, so we do need to watch that because that is in my mind,

a great measure of how we will have success with the afghan people. i will be contacting the inspector general and asking him his opinion. i would like to follow up with what mr. hynes said in terms of, if we need to be providing more security for our fahd's, that is something we should be doing. with that i yield back. >> mr. kaufman. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all secretary flournoy and general paxton thank you for your service to our country. general paxton, would you agree or argue that the center of gravity for the taliban is this ability to control the civilian population overtly or covertly through a shadow government and the exact revenues from them? >> i would agree with that sir. >> then in looking at the operation we are going to do next in kandahar, which is the

basis of the taliban in terms of that is where they originated from, if we were able to deny them that, the ability to exercise governance over the taliban people as a shadow government or covertly, what does that do in terms of-- i mean from an overall perspective in terms of the war in afghanistan, in bringing it to a close? >> the first step obviously, it denies them the physical freedom of movement. it denies them the emotional, intellectual, the governance freedom of movement so if they have a populace that they can't reach or a populace who does not believe their message or who is unwilling to follow them than the fertile ground that they seek to either control physically or to institute some terror, either high-profile attacks, intimidation, unquestioning sharia law, so that they have lost that opportunity there.

what that does is give both us in the short-term and more importantly the government of iraq in the long-term operating room and breathing space so that they can build loyalty. they can get schools going, health clinics and give them the evidence of social services and infrastructure but the people of afghanistan need. >> i was in afghanistan in november and met with general mcchrystal at that time and asked him prior to the president making his announcement as to a timetable that we would in fact begin to be able to draw down our forces in 2011 was the objective of the president. i asked general mcchrystal, if he got the troops he requested, when could we expect to draw down our forces? he said, 2013. keep in mind that, and i asked him-- he was referencing the 40,000 at that point.

now, he got 30,000. 9000 were from our coalition partners. first of all, could you respond as to what the net is in terms of coalition partners since some are withdrawing a number 2, to what extent are those coalition partners that will exist going forward have caveats that keep them from participating and certainly kinetic operations? >> at this time mr. kaufman we have 46 and djibouti nations in afghanistan, including the united states. it is almost a 50/50 split. i think it is 22, 23 and one that are caveat free that can do anything and some of them the national caveats, while certainly restrictive, are not preemptive. that does not perk route them for what they can do. i know the commanders on the ground take a very close look about how they assign battle space and how they assigned missions to get the maximum use

of each of the contributing nations when they get there. i would have to take a look at the master plan to see in the aftermath of kandahar, as we stay there in days ahead, where the lay down a forces may be and i could get that to you if you needed or her guess the general path and i appreciate that. secretary flournoy, i was listening to your statement, it and in defining the mission as it exists now and in this administration. i think in one point in time you said it was about keeping al qaeda out of afghanistan. and then you qualified that further in terms of al qaeda and their associates. what is the in-state? is the in state potentially, since you did mention the taliban, is that a coalition government that would incorporate the taliban or elements of the taliban?

>> i think the key from our interest perspective is to deny any safe haven for al qaeda and its associates. i think that, in any situation, a coin strategy and military dimension takes you so far and at some point there is a political set of outcomes that are reached. we saw this in iraq. i think we are the afghan, we are working with the afghan government to try to get a better understanding of the processes they will ultimately lead on both reintegration and reconciliation. i think it is very important to set a set of criteria for who will get reintegrated back into afghan society and how. and whether it is disavowing al qaeda, laying down their arms,

abiding by the constitution or go those are the kinds of criteria that the afghan government will need to articulate as they get to the point of defining what an acceptable political landscape looks like, and we will certainly be in deep conversation with him about that. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. henry. >> thank you chairman. secretary flournoy i hate to beat a dead horse but since several of my colleagues have repeatedly reference referenced as opposed to 30,000 person troop cap, can you give us a one word answer, has the administration opposed a troop cap in afghanistan? >> know we have not imposed a troop cap. what president obama did in december was to approve 30,000 additional troops to afghanistan and a degree of flexibility for the secretary of defense to authorize further support of force protection.

>> has general mcchrystal requested additional troops? >> there have been a couple of cases such as. >> in general he has not sir because we are in the process of flowing all three of the sports packages and the obligation would be that he would take a look at how they met the mission on the ground before he came back. we have made some adjustments both in terms of combat forces and trainers on the ground so we have made a modest adjustment to the number. >> and you think the general mcchrystal would continue to feel free to make, to request those kinds of adjustments if he feels it necessary? >> absolutely, sir. >> do you think is the interior defense, the president or anyone else has ever ordered general mcchrystal not to make those kinds of requests? >> know sir. ..

his staff and the people who are training the trainers if you will. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i will yield back. >> mr. willson. -- before mr. chairman and both of you for your service madame secretary and general, thank you

and general i had the honor last august to visit with the marines at camp leatherneck, camp bastion. it was inspiring since i represent parris island to see the dedication of the marines. i particularly appreciate what both of you are doing because i'm the co-chair of the afghan caucus visited the country nine times i have great respect for president karzai for the defense minister or and of general mcchrystal and petraeus we have an extraordinary team there. firsthand my former national guard unit, the infantry brigade of the national guard searched for a year in afghanistan led by general bob livingston and i

visited with the troops from south carolina every three months and i found there was an extraordinary relationship between american forces and the people of afghanistan to the point they identify each other as brothers, american and afghan brothers so i'm hopeful. perfect, no but very helpful. with that, the ever-changing situation. what is the status of the cross border collaboration between afghanistan and pakistan and have there been significant changes in the past year? >> thank you, mr. wilson. we were here with of the committee last week to talk about pakistan and there have been positive engagements and positive changes on both sides of the border within the last year and this includes a master of the down for border coordination centers, some bcc and cc and we've been able to work with the pact mill on their

side of the border as well as national security forces for manning and equipping the stations. two of them are fully operational capable what this time and we are looking for the location and the manning of the others, so all of that demonstrates the degree of trust in that transparency and degree of equal procedures if you will so there is mitigates lessons and tension on the borders of that's a good indication and positive one within the last year. >> and i am really hopeful in my visits to islamabad and other parts of pakistan. to me it is clear it's mutually beneficial the security of both countries. it's been expressed concern, but in regard to training security forces, psychiatry gates last week or recently announced 350 additional trainers as a stopgap measure to fill vacancies. the problem has been the nato

allies fulfilling their obligations and i was very happy working with ortiz, the chair of the romania caucus to find out last week from the ambassador of rumania they are now increasing their participation from 1200 troops to 1800 troops so there are some positive stories that really should be told, and i know that on a visit to bulgaria the people are very proud of their participation and recognition but what is being done to increase participation from nato allies? >> the secretary has raised this at his mastery of a secure clinton had hers. we've had numerous visits, calls, etc. and the majority of our nato allies are stepping up since the strategy review was completed in december and they are offering above and beyond what they already offered.

they are offering more trainers. the challenge is the gap is still fair so we are asking one another to step up even further so we will continue that process. but i think you are right to get a number of countries have stepped up substantially with institutional trainers and omelets and palmer's since we fast. >> it was interesting last week i had the opportunity to meet with a foreign minister of bulgaria and they are so proud of the american bases that are now in their country and they did when now, general, they would be very happy at such training bases to provide for advanced training for personnel prior to being deployed and they've got the capability, they've got the bases and the citizens support within the community. but again, thank you both of you for your service and when you are doing by defeating the terrorists overseas.

thank you. >> ai thank the gentleman. the gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor. >> thank you congenital and ms. flournoy for being with us. for what it's worth, also met mr. karzai, and for what it is worth my reaction was just the opposite. if i had been present when he threatened to go to the taliban, my response would have been don't let the screen door hit you in the rear end for what it's worth. having said that, ms. flournoy, reading a book by a russian infantry officer called the bear went over the mountain. it's mostly about tactics. but what is disturbing about it seems to be the same and bush in the same places going over about a tenth or 12th year period and the talk about training the afghan army and training of and afghan police and we know for years after they left the government they set up was gone.

now i appreciate the general. he got to be a general by being a can-do guy. i'm going to make the best of my search mission and i'm going to make it work and i appreciate you going to work in the department of defense. but what realistically makes you think the outcome is going to be different this time? >> what makes me think the outcome will be different is the fundamental objective of the mission and focus of the mission is different. institutions built under hostile occupation don't tend to have longevity and credibility with a population. institutions built with support of the population -- have a lot more chance of succeeding over time. that's what we are trying to do with this ansf. >> i appreciate you saying that. i've not live in afghan -- afghanistan. laurie stewart did. and told me after living there

for years and walking across afghanistan that the afghans mockingly refer to karzai as the miracle bowl because once you get outside the city he's got absolutely no influence so how would you respond to that? and that is coming from someone who's lived in afghanistan. >> again, i think that most afghans experience government at local level and the building up the credibility and the capacity of the local institutions, the district level and so forth is where it is clean to influence the judgment of the afghan people and i think the progress that we have seen at that level and frankly increasingly competent national government in terms of the cabinet president karzai has put together is changing afghan attitudes. this poultices 59% believe the government is heading in the right direction. i don't think you've ever had a

poll in afghanistan say that before. and that is in response to changes they are experiencing on the ground. are we there yet? absolutely not. are we starting to win the right direction? yes. >> how would you respond to an equal perception of majority of the afghans who think that karzai's brother is the biggest narcotics the war in afghanistan? >> i don't think it's -- i don't want to focus on individuals -- >> that is the president's brother. that's why i feel we should focus on it. >> it is very important to look at the government's at all levels and the progress that's being made across. >> if the president of the country can't tell his brother to get out of the narcotics trade, if some of the united states military is renting property, if we can't turn around and as a condition of the lease on the properties they by the way, are you going to get out of the narcotics trade,

where does it begin? >> no, sir, i don't feel -- it's appropriate for me or frankly i'm not qualified -- i'm not the person qualified to evaluate specific individuals or cases but likens a -- >> and who is? >> well, let me tell you what i've seen when i came back i have seen a place that had no afghan government whatsoever for years and in the last six months after some very difficult fighting on the part of international afghan forces we have enabled a district to governor who was queen to be put in place who is working with local tribal leaders working with the international community to funnel aid to projects getting benefitting the population, getting their buying in and for the first time, creating a district governor

center that is the go to place for the afghan population. that is the model we are trying to the plate. if the fact it is possible that has been called the heart of darkness by many authors writing about afghanistan, the fact that it is possible means that it is possible elsewhere in that country and that is what we are trying to achieve. >> how long do you think president karzai would live without the american military protecting him? >> i am not in the position to speculate -- sprick don't you think that puts us in a position to at least dictate terms of engagement like narcotics, like honesty in government? >> i'm sorry -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. mr. conaway. >> in the interest of maintaining the center and and and fun you are having i will go ahead and ask a question. walking across the street today

the health care vote was going on, some body stopped me and sit aren't offended the president during this momentous occasion is watching the basketball game and i said no i'm not offended by what the president is doing this afternoon. what i'm offended is the fact we have had a fight going on in afghanistan for six months that the marines have been in hammer and tong and not one word about the wonderful success that those men and women have been doing from the white house to read a lot of talk but nothing out of the white house. that offends me. it does offend me the white house has dealt to recognize the hard work you just referenced miss flournoy and so i hope you get a little bit more attention to the success coming out of there. >> i want to say for the record don't believe that is accurate it may not have gotten adequate press coverage the president certainly hasn't been silent. >> we look forward to him

getting what he wants to get out, ms. flournoy, we can have a tussle with you would like. that wasn't my intent. and the generals came back and generally we get a report from a general but said the focus on intelligence and afghanistan was over balanced toward finding bad guys and dealing with bad guys and that it needed to be more of a balanced approach so that our company and a squad and commanders on the ground knew who the players were and who the good guys were and bad guys were and what the crops were and all the stuff you would normally need in order to do the full spectrum job the fight in afghanistan in false, killing bad guys is front of the west absolutely. general paxton, your assessment to the rebalancing was that the case we had new resources to the system so that the commanders to know what's going on around with

respect to the economy with respect to everything else that isn't kinetic in a reflection of that report from january. >> when you're doing the shape we're told bildt has to be any focused its population focused in terms of the strategy with the tactics have to be focused on who you think the bad guys are and where to think about guys are and when you know about them so it is a constant drive for more intelligence and we've tried to strike a balance between intelligence assets whether it is the is are over here or the line of sight between what's available in the strategic level and the operational level once we go to the tactical level and have a feeling that the forces and capability is adequately meeting the needs or is projected to meet what we think will be a current gap and the need. one of the additional response to these i have for the secretary is to sit on the senior integration group that used to be the counter ied task

force comes dr. carter and donner taking a look about a clipping side and make sure we have adequate technologies, capabilities, requisite training so that we can identify ied material and border crossings where they come from. the kinetics and so they're there for by the same token if you are trying to make sure the local folks see it as more of the solution as opposed to just the police and making sure those commanders have as much information as the need. and i planned on the general's name and i apologize for that but it seemed to be brought them just who the ied guys were and focus on the bad guys as opposed to information commanders need to know the year digging a well over there would be really

important versus paving a road or the fees are the folks within the community who are above opinion leaders and making sense and others and there are three bad guys over there that have been there for an hour and a half and we've done all this stuff, go shoot them. but the issue is in the counter insurgency you have broader than just killing bad guys. sprick the development of human intelligence the way we train our small unit leaders we're spending an adequate time on the national training center on twentynine palms and home station trimmings for hammill. >> down range they've got the tools they to exploit the training? >> yes, sir i am convinced they do. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sprick i just received a note i have votes in just a minute but madame secretary, general, thank you for being here and a lot of

the questions you've been receiving have been very specific i want to go to a couple of broad questions. the primary goal of afghanistan is defeating al qaeda. start with that. semidey feeding al qaeda and its associates. >> how does this strategy we are doing in afghanistan right now facilitate the goal of not just defeating al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan but worldwide. sprick afghanistan pakistan, the border region has been the sort of lowercase of the heart and if you will al qaeda for many years and so i think denying them sanctuary and safe haven disrupting them has a powerful impact on the global network to make sure the afghans and pakistanis have their own capability to do the denial in the future. >> with a not assuming that happens and we create stability

there would they not simply seek another safe haven, yemen, other places? what prevents that? >> some of them might but the truth is the combination of ethnic, tribal, other ties to this particular reason makes it their preferred home if you will and other places will not be as hospitable as many as robust a network. sprick if they seek safe haven elsewhere would you believe the strategy would be inappropriate one as well in other words is that a sustainable approach? >> i don't think -- i think each and five must be dealt with in its own terms and to the terms we are dealing with the network and other places would tayler that effort to the local conditions that are allowing a group to gain a foothold. >> there's been a number of questions on the allies. obviously the president's

request for troops assume a certain level of commitment for our allies. where are we in terms of achieving that number and what impact does our failure to achieve that number or limitations placed on the allies in terms of what they can do affect our ability to succeed? >> i think our allies have stepped up tremendously and that with allied support and we are meeting general mcchrystal's requirements. and i think going into the future we need to work with them to sustain the capabilities that we need as the operation continues to enfold. splendid the request for the 30,000 troops assume that the 10,000 additional troops for an ally that the use of those troops would be limited? >> limited in what sense? >> where they go and what they

do and whether they are in safe areas of the country or not. >> again, i think that isaf has made use of allied forces extremely well. i think our focus and concentration has been on the south and east. many of our allies focused on the west and the north with a couple of them also coming south with us and east but i think the general mcchrystal has been able to take into account the various strengths and caveat of some forces to handle that. >> any time you do your assessment you try to minimize the assumptions because you realize an assumption that you don't have ground to its on if it unravels your plane could go so when general mcchrystal submitted the assessment last august and when the assessment was reviewed and analyzed here in the washington area for

several months it was based on the facts on the ground which was the nation's, who they were, what their capabilities were, with their cat and ghats were and what a reasonable expectation was were they going to bring in a replacement for sore at that time would they look to scale up or scaledowns of that is why the assessment itself as open-ended because those dynamics could always change with contributing nations. >> where are we in terms of members of allies and troops in relation to the 10,000 we assume? >> as we said earlier we have 9,000 that have been pledged since december. a little over 4,000 actually on the ground right now. >> does that take into consideration the troops likely to withdraw the allied troops likely to withdraw? >> i will have to take the for the record. we know which ones we anticipate will withdraw. they will come back with the they are going to replace -- >> let me rephrase. 10,000 troops assumed of that we have 4,000 of ground. is that right?

and we don't know whether or not that assumes the troops are about to withdraw? >> it did as of december when we made the plan. that is correct. >> thank the gentleman. ms. davis. >> thank you growth if you for being here once again. and i wanted to just go back to a concept we've been working hard on and i want to commend the administration on what b.c. has a greater interagency collaboration in this effort. we suffered through a number of years we felt we were not able to bring that together and that's happening and i appreciate that greatly. however, i think there has also been a number of reports that would suggest we are not doing nearly as good a job as we could on capitalizing on popular grievances against the taliban and for that to occur we need to have enough resources devoted to the political and economic

conditions and i know that you have certainly recognized that. we look at the report of a special inspector general for afghanistan and that would suggest we are falling short in that area and so i'm wondering in light of last week's discussion as well to the military and nonmilitary resources being utilized here coming years it probably a good balance in pakistan, 50% perhaps. what guarantees can we have that we actually i would think me to go beyond that in terms of nonmilitary in afghanistan in order to be able to capitalize on those popular grievances? where are we as you will get that issue and the way you describe the last week? >> i do think that the civilian surge has brought more interagency capacity to afghanistan and i think the

embassy has requested additional growth going into next year to fill out and push down debt capacity for the level to the district levels particularly in the critical districts where we think they will have the greatest impact. so i think that those requirements continue to be refined and they are going out and we are going to resources the state department colleagues and others will be seeking support from congress to resource those additional requirements. >> can you be more specific in terms of where you think the resources -- sprick a lot of them will be going to district teams to in power governments at the district level which is the critical interface with a lot of local tribal structures and villages to harness to the element assistance and support of that particularly funding for things like d.o.t. are coming out of aid.

agriculture, will fall is an area where there has been a vacuum and the taliban stepped in law programs of the local level were important to competing with them and displacing them. >> in those efforts, is it fair to acknowledge those efforts are not necessarily the kind of bottom-up efforts people are asking for the would suggest we have a pretty good understanding of the people of afghanistan today? >> each critical district is starting with a need assessment. what do the people need and want? what do they view as important? what do they prioritize? what do they expect and what will be most meaningful to them? and that is the foundation for a lot of the realignment of our assistance. >> some of the articles coming out now that are suggesting after eight years we are not even beginning to do that yet

would you challenge that and are there some examples? >> i would particularly the critical districts we've identified as key population centers, a key to production, a key to minds of connection so forth and in those areas we are pursuing and much more needs based integrated approach. it may be something that hasn't happened in the past but that is definitely where we've been heading in the last year. >> i would echo what the secretary said. whether it is the dst, omelets, prt other than a shell in the nucleus their tailored to the needs based requirement driven solution. >> dalia just a few seconds. general, when the chairman mentioned the achilles' heel, you cited two examples that are the most difficult demonstration

of good government and the cooperation regional lead. could you take a stab on a timeline for wind some of those things you think there might be real evidence that that was occurring? >> in terms of protecting a time when i couldn't but i will say that we have had indications in the last year for example in pakistan this though u.s. and nations in the area so i think it is constantly evolving and we've had good news stories. thank you. >> before i call on mr. mckeon, speaking about a good news story, and madame secretary, you mentioned agriculture a few moments ago, part of the good news story is the national guard troops then are assisting in teaching better agriculture process to the afghan farmers

and a number of them have been national guard troops who are farmers and that is what they do. it's been highly successful. >> my question is what are we doing right in afghanistan that we did not do right in iraq? madam secretary. >> that's a really hard question because a lot of what we are doing right in afghanistan i think was informed by both mistakes and what we did right in iraq as well as the two countries are. i think in afghanistan given the nature of the society we are doing a lot more bottom-up to read a lot more building of the

local district and moving up to provincial levels and appreciate the importance of incorporating traditional societal structures, the tribes, ethnic groups and seeking inclusive city, seeking balance that will ultimately determine the sustainability of the games we make so i think that bottom-up focus, the appreciation for the demographics, the cultural landscape is a key emphasis in afghanistan going forward. >> general? >> mr. chairman the other thing we are doing critically is recaptured the lessons learned from iraq and afghanistan and we are doing better at left seat right seat in terms of turnover on stations so we get a chance to have key leader engagements with those individuals would be significant to coming up with an immediate and practical

solutions in the area and i think we've modified training continue on at the bases and stations to reflect the situation on the ground as well as the recent success stories. >> i thank the witness. mr. mckeon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. early on in my statement and then in my questions i asked about the 30,000 cap and you both assured me there is no cap, the reason i talked about it and asked questions about it is that is the way that it's been reported in the press and the other way secretary gates talked about that the way the president did approve 30,000 the secretary had flexibility of about 10% that he could work with on that. i would like to go back over a little history as i remember

eight in the last couple of years. the president became president in january of 2009. he approved i believe in march an additional 20,000 troops and came out with his strategy and replaced the commanding putting general mcchrystal and gave him time to come up with a implementation of the strategy. he presented in august and went up to the chain of command. we were first saw about it in the "washington post" and we have been given that. we've never seen the numbers attached that he cannot with leader. there's been lots of talks you requested from 40,000 up to twice of reports about 100,000. the president on the 90 days approved the 30,000 surge that

would be sent to afghanistan as soon as they could be sent and then they would return, they would begin to draw down in july july 11 and be pulled out by december 11. in december 10 there would be a review and the drawdown of those 30,000 troops would begin in july 11. provo's correct statements? >> why would say differently is july of 2011 is the end of the 30,000 surge if you will and the inflection point where we will begin conditions based process of looking to transition

provinces that are ready to afghan lead with the associated implications in terms of changes of mission, potential changes and force allocation and some drawdown associated with it and i think a responsible drawdown of all that you've seen in iraq is going to inform the approach that you are likely to see in afghanistan. the president hasn't put a timetable on that except to say by 2011 we will begin the process and that was informed by our judgment of conditions across numerous problems is that some would be ready by then. >> let me also comment on one other thing i remember about that is when i met with general mcchrystal, he said he felt 30,000 would be sufficient even

though he had requested more based on all of the reports that we have seen. he said 30,000 would be sufficient but that the mission had been changed i think it was downsized. now the 1230 report suggests there are a total of 121 districts of interests but the joint command isaf feels the only resources to conduct operations in 48 of the district's. can you discuss this and what resources are we short? >> we did, and general mcchrystal had the view you can't focus everywhere all the time to be to have to have priorities and focus on key areas with your campaign. >> and i think what he was -- when he did his assessment in

august, negative he was basing that on the strategy that the president had given him in march and that's when i think he was given the number 30,000 he had to downsize. >> i don't think that's quite right. there has always been an intention to determine where to focus in the country that will have the greatest impact on the country as a whole. >> if he had received 40 or 50,000 troops he could have focused on more of the country. semidey want to jump in on this? >> when the strategy was developed and the assessment was underway there were main efforts support and efforts and economy force efforts as there are in any campaign and ability to prosecute more than one main effort or to do supporting efforts and do it faster is all

driven by the boots on the ground amount of force is you have. we haven't deviated without where he saw the main effort and then as you move from what was a supporting efforts and brought it into the main effort how he thought the campaign would unfold savitt focused on the movement of the south to start with. >> we have agreement on one thing? >> if we were given 60,000 troops to could have done more faster? >> it's a reasonable subject. anytime you get more -- >> it's not a linear equation but when you get more you can do more. islamic it certainly influenced the president's decision on this was the force flow. when he was presented with members of the higher end of the range that general mcchrystal put on the table the force flow meant not all of the forces would be in place at one time

and one of the things the president said is what approach will get me the greatest number of forces the fastest and that was very much informed that the ultimate decision. the other thing i would say about the 48 district to be is that is based on the forces available, u.s. forces, coalition forces and afghan forces able to partner. the idea is to focus 48 this year and then grow the number next year and so forth so that again is trying to insure that you have enough of military, afghan and civilian resources to fully deliver in these districts over time. >> it's the first time i've heard the comment that you made that all of the 30,000 troops would be there by july 11.

some of the 30,000 will be by the end of this august. i'm sorry, the flow of forces -- >> 2010 all of the 30,000? >> the 30,000 the president ordered in december except one headquarters but mcchrystal doesn't meet until the fall will be there by the end of august and the fact that -- that is the president's decision. sprick had been a slow or a rifle and that was accelerated given the sequence of ramadan and afghan elections and to get maximum value. mr. secretaries said there were two significant caveat when we looked at the assumption and what you could actually put on the ground in terms of infrastructure and the enablers. you can get the troops to do the mission but the man out of the ground mobility or engineering support. >> i appreciate that. i just misunderstood what you said earlier that they would be in place buy july.

i was thing you're talking 2011. >> of the yearlong tour takes you to jul -- >> that is why i always understood so i appreciate that. i just misunderstood. thank you, mr. chairman. specs before. if there are no other questions let me ask what do you need from congress that you are not receiving now? >> we appreciate support general within the things we have before you now which are both fy 11 request and supplemental request your support for those two things would give the resources we need to implement general mcchrystal's plan and resource commission as an efficient. >> anything to add? >> i thank the committee in congress for their support of the soldiers, sailors, airmen

and marines the training and equipping and enabling weigel they are there and for those who bear the brunt of the bottle and are injured and wounded when they come back and as we mentioned last week, pakistan hearings negative ki loss for the latitude of the multi your money that gives more flexibility. thank you. >> thank you. we appreciate your appearance and testimony. if there is no further discussion we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

now we forum on u.s.-china relations beginning with deputy secretary of state james steinberg followed by a discussion how global climate change is effective relations. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> it is a pleasure to be back.l youfeels like he never quite went away and you especially feels that of course because i have the honor and pleasure ofse former o many of my former brookingsan copies being my current colleagues now in government including the formerr leader of the portents center houston and extraordinary job for president obama over at the white house and so many other colleagues so it's nice to see

former officials at brookings and vice versa.rly and i am particularly grateful t have a chance to talk about a the issues you raised, ken,your because i think your observations are right. the big change in our relationship has been the center with a of the global issues andp as read the questionss and thau put ari essential toding w understanding both where we are wee we cpotentially where we cl in this bilateral relationship ha which has such enormous consequences not only for the people of the united states andt china but for the world given the central goals of ourplay in layed both been part the of p the problem and part of ths solution on so many of theseissl issues like the economy, climate and the like.appreciati for m also express appreciation to mye goodnd friend, former colleague richard. i'm glad to see it thrive. to great deal of interest. it's made a great contribution i amrichard's extraordinary leadership. so, i'm glad to see things are iemanding in very good hands

here. i think it's important to begin lois discussion of ourcollaborng collaboration on the global by issues by reiterating the basic approach and precepts under which president obama has ledgae our engagement with china and as he said, we welcome the china that is strong, prosperous ander successful member of the intra mashaal community. nellis the time for the great nations to join hands and commit to creating a prosperous richard for the children. the commitment is forward-looking and positive which reflects the fact that we need to understand our bilateral relationship in our broad context.relationship and a and this goes b to the point thn secretary clinton made in a speech she gave to the council on foreign relations last yeare which is given the nature of the challenges we face and the change on global agenda how wefe face a world in which the ad central problem of time is how to generate effective collection action to deal with the problems

the country on its own were no matter how powerful consulting and this is an inside both the united states and china share of the core of the effort to deal with these global problems. so, for us, the great challengel is to build the structures of ultilateran which includes building on a multilateral basis hanisms of thest mec cooperation for the 21st century but also to undergird that withe strong bilateral relations with, key play years beginning with our traditional allies of course but then also to the emergingtor power not just china but india, brazil, turkey, indonesia, south africa and all the countries that play an increasinglyes cynical dealing with a big global challenges of our time. and i think although where the press tends to focus on the day to day ups and downs of our r bilateral relationship with china and from time to time proclaims near or eminem or ualr virtual criisses in that is relationshipfa i think it's fai1

to say the last 18 months this has been a strong protective period in u.s.-china relations and has demonstrated the countries are able to workcoun together effectively to deal wie with the big structural challenges of our time.t sat to say that everything is always perfectly smilooth saili. i don't think any of us who've dealt with u.s.-china relations what ever expect this to be without its difficulties or thei cooperation with the automatic but i think we've demonstrated over time where there are wfficulties we can work throug, them and when there are disagreements of goals and more typically among h the means we can work through th them, through dialogue by trund building trust and try to find common ground by recognizingon f most of the big issues the cours objectives, the core interestswr are common between the two countries and while we may havee differences about them the best means to to achieve them the stn conviction about the common goal

gives a framework within which. to work through these talk throa differences and i will talkthose through a number of those issues in just a moment. so, i think if you look at our r strategy going forward it has iven to build a strong andrehens comprehensive relationship thate deals with the full range of issues don't have the luxury ofy narrowing down to a handful but also to build a relationship of trust across a broad range of issues that gives the context ie which to solves individual sets of issues that we face and i think it's particularly timing to look at the areas of cooperation because we and our administration and i'm confident counterparts and china are right now focused on working towards the second strategic economic dialogue that will take place iw beijing in just a few weeks under the leadership on our side of secretary clinton andooperat,

geithner. we think about the areas of cooperation that kennethip to identified on the first trip toh china which is now an year-and-a-half ago secretary clinton highlighted three areas she anticipated at the outset os her time as secretary of state w would be area where there was great opportunity for increaseds collaboration.and the first was international andi regional security issues the irn specially iran and north korea.d the second was a clean energy and climate and third was response to what was already been cleared of substantial eco global economic crisis buildingu the newil foundation for afoundi balanced and sustainable growth and i think on all three they've proven to be the relationship on and we've made important progress in all three of them and that is where i'm going to spend the remainder of my time g talking about today.we areocused on security issues something we see he state department are

focused on you can see thatumb there is a number of areas where we have made a significantith progress beginning with ogle security challenges of counterterrorism and piracy the thracy, attempt to build a sustained ilitarry to military relationship and urgently in the one that captures the deals wit. both iran and north korea. if you look at issues likepirac piracyfor for example the deep n g global eorts to china supporting goebel efforts to the deg deal with the common scourged eesonstrates the degree to whics china increasingly sees its part of coming to its share and be part of but global solutions learning to work effectively nao commonther navies and other nations to deal with a common challenge and not just free ride on the efforts of others at this is a very welcome to the limit and we see that as we understana this is a common threat to commerce and safe shipping the t

fact we have so many countries gether working together countries that are not historically participated in the multilaterao ventures isn't a strong and simple how china can play an cou importantnt contributing role. on the military front there aret two progress. although it is not sustained as we would like but we believe it is in part in military to military cooperation be an all it itheir effort and we have difficulties but it's importanti n assist in the dialogue between the military but wediale had important exchange of high-level visits on the military side we think are critical to building trust between the two nations. on iran, i think the strategy the president obama andobama psychiatry clinton have fled since the beginningon of the administration which is to to iran and demonstrate willingnesc to engage in seeking a diplomatic solution to our, pary differences particularly on theh nuclear question has proven n

successful if not in inducings e iran to agree to the steps we think it needs to take that atre least demonstrating we are serious about looking for diplomatic solutions and that. nuspu on iranng the o for the failure to make progress up to date. and i think as a result of that, we are seeing unprecedented international cooperation in cot thnding a clearion message to in that its actions are notby supported by the internationalro community and it needs to work s effectively with us or it will subject itself to significant t costs.t fa we saw that last fall onll then important decisions taken by ths iaea board of governors which w. have strong support of china ane russia and now as we move forward on the security council calling on the p5 plus one process, which iran is dealing with china, russia and our european partners. and while we have not adjusteded positions in terms of the action the security council should takd

we've seen particularly since president hu's visit to the nuclearor security summit the growing partners in the security -- couo to recognize the time has comehe to take significant action. i think it is clear from both of their statements and engagements in china that they understand iran seeking to develop nucleara weaponspo nsis i not in its intt nd that there is a need for the international message to go wita it and we are working hard tod o reach common ground in the groui coming days and the security sd council to send the message to iran.cy the path to diplomacy remains open and we believe that is thee best way forward but iran will come to understand there is a strong consensus in the international community that what it is doing is dangerous and needs to change course. similarly with respect to north korea i think our willingness to both engage and offer the prospect of engagement with north korea and also to make

clear we have clear expectations with that engagement needs to produce has helped build a strong international consensus both in support of diplomacy and in support of effective international measures where north korea has turned its back on diplomacy and i think that speed off substantially in the common actions we took along with china and the other membert of the security council in response to north korea'se count missile test last year and its nuclear test last year which led to a swift and unprecedented degree of consensus among the remaining parties in the six-party talks and the security council toil move forward with w sanctions on north korea whichla we believe are having significant impact.situat we obviously face a very challenging situation with the sinking of the cheonan on the al

a thor peninsula and we all recognize we need a thorough investte investigation. no one is trying to hasten the conclusions on this but we are s determined to pursue this thoroughly and follow the facts where they played in this will in turn on have a received on is actions not only on the nuclear front but other provocative on measures it takes and on the clarity and with the cause of must lnking of the cheonan it must live up to its congressional obligations on the nuclear weapons program c'mon abiding the evin security council resolutions and more, broadly hinting its belligerent. threatening behavior towards its neighbors. p throughout this process asro icn said china has played an important constructive role through the six-party talks ande in ournt engagement both bilaterally and in new york ande onussi are engaged in intensive

discussion with the key partneri in the region including china oo how to deal with this latest incident and we very much hope that during this recent visit of kim jong il to china that they i had an opportunity to share their concerns about north korea's's behavior and make clear we are watching closely to see how the events unfold in connection with the cheonan to read that is the first basket o. security. ideified the second basket the secretary identified was on clean energyell climate. i don't think i need to tell w s this audience or any one of thev united states and china have a l sick to lead to such a significant role to play in thee challenge of energy and climateo change. we of the two largest energy consumers and greenhouse gasmate matters and there's simply nore imaginable solution to the problems either of long termhe energy security or dealing withg signicantems of greenhouse gases and climate without significantb

engagement and a contribution by both united states and china so now it is up to us to be the we, vanguard rows were two acts of a real transition to the low carbon economy if we get any hope to meet the global agreed objectives for limiting the concentration of greenhousee gases in the atmosphere and thee rest of increased global suggesatures and i think the evidence here suggests and i know a lot of people here atking brookings are spending timeis, chge in at this question that we are seeing a change in the way historic approaching the question from its historicalt it position of suggesting that either it wasn't a problem or if it wasn't it was somebody else's problem to deal with and therefore not responsibility fos china or somehow something that could impede the economic development. we now are beginning to see a recognition china recognizes its own self-interest the need to deal with a problem of

greenhouse gas emissions. so we have seen in china's actio national plan and insts actionsg copenhagen that we are beginnine to see china address the key challenges which is to see china reduce its emissions below business as usual levels as it goes forward in its economic development and put it on arm ph long-term past to meet the clima global needs for the climate science has cooled as a level o sustainable level of greenhouseu gas emissions or concentrations in the atmosphere and to improve transparency and accountability so that the -- all of us can judge the extent to which plans and commitments china is making its own national level or something that can be validatedo and received by thef international community as well is play a constructive role in the international negotiations. and i think we saw in the finala outcome in cogepenhagen a clear vecognition of china taking at

least positive steps if not complete steps on each of those elements. we have heard a lot about these difficulties of those negotiations for those of usved involved in kyoto to think it should come as no surprise like many find souffles or meals theh testow is not what looked whilet was made but what can out of the evin and i think if you look out with some siinally ended, we saw some very significantgn steps forward and notably for the first time all major economies including china and it's particularly significant china was part of this meeting the retional commitment to curb and emissions and transparentlyigatn critic on the mitigation efforts which is critical to getting the credibility to these commitments and now we need to all work together going forward to make the copenhagen accord operational with a balanced thatitment by all major economies. internaonal engag and that international engagement has been complementek by the bilateral work on energy and climate. mem we have signed a meormoanrandumu

understanding to enhance cooperation on climate change, clean energy and environment ate the last strategic economicco dialogue with the president visited beijing last november, we had a adopted package ofan eg measures including the nuclear energy c renesteearch center ane vehicles initiatives and renewable energy partnership. we also agree on a public ndivate energy cooperation a program and cooperation on clean coal development. very practical steps that cane offer benefits to both countrieo efforts in private sector partners who are part of these efforts. o forwardal way to g and we have things we need to do at home, we are very much committed coming the president -- we are very much committed, the president is moving forward and committed to move legislation forward in the united states. we understand we need to do our part, but this is something we can do hand in hand with china to make a clean and predictable

environment. the third topic that the secretary identified in her initial remarks was the challenge of the economic crisis and global growth. i think here you said the potential the partnership between the united states and china. this is not a g-2. however important our two countries are, we need the cooperation of all of the systemic international players. the prospects for dealing, both with the short-term challenges in the crisis as well as the long-term challenge of sustainable global economic growth, they simply cannot meet. both countries did step up and do their part. china was a clear player in the financial crisis. this was the occasion of the president's first meeting with president hu was in london for the g-20 meeting.

now we needed to turn to the elements that will make the best recovery sustainable over the long term. there requires china to recognize the shift to more consumption in a service based economy. that is in china's interest as well as the interest of the global economy. and the greasy some signs that the chinese leadership understands that in sight. -- i think we see some signs that the chinese leadership understands me to resolve long term debt. that connects to the question of domestic consumption in china and other emerging economies as we try to sustain more balanced economic growth. one importance is the china moving to a market-based exchange rate.

i think this is a principle that have embraced and has been reiterated by prime -- by president hu. it is not done as a favor to anyone country but it is a part of china's national interest. their economic leaders recognize this needs to be done that recognizes that these are changes that take place over time but we need to move in the right direction if we want to give the global markets confidence that we are going in the right direction. moving towards a market based exchange rate is a win-win. all economies will be stronger. there will be a more sustained basis for china's on economic industries if we have balanced growth. athe s at the same timeim recognize countries likee, china and other e emerging economies play a greater role in the global economy that we need tosign have to have global

economic institutions so as s we said all emerging common eight -- to come as you merging the teetwenty china wor with the third largest share of volume rights to give china of the ad greater role of the imf and gives them the opportunity to a exercise their ship and responsible leadership in this long term strategy to keep the engine of global growth going. all the issues are on the agenda and there isth significanter progress at the hs highest levels with common share divisions even if we don't entirely agreed with every detail. the sender's goods building on the successful first meeting in washington ande have more senior presentation did in

washington with 15 cabinet members and traveling to beijing and we use this to do with long term challenges toward nineveo issues at the bureaucratic t level at the decision of a also a good opportunity to sustain governments to understand our thinking and there's as well and hopefully to implodes decision-making bair and the ability to do this with environmental energy is an important feature to break down rear overseas and the systematic and integrated usy. the lcd sets out to give long-termng- priorities and

also to have a concrete task. so again as with last year to have to court tracks the economic tracked with economic growth from our perspective putting importunes on sustainingempl employment point* the united states andn th building and strengthening exports foramer american firms as well as encouraging china to moveove forward to contribute to global economic rebalance. on the strategic track we have three brothers one is. counterterrorism ensure military ties and the international security issues in addition to the two that i talked about with iran and number three and one afghanistan and pakistan also having a very positive sucked of dialogue and working together on common objectives and a third track

through multilateralilat institutions on issues like climate change and health and security. needless to say everyone in these dialogues is free to raise issues or concerns you have the opportunity to make our points t including rights and religious freedom and intellectuall property rightsedm and our concern of the aspects of the military china astion of well as the issue of the o overall global economic balance of exchange rates. undoubtedly court issues in t the taiwan straits and the need for china to have ae da deeper engagement with the dali lama within therk framework o of the 12 in a policy we have continued to reiterate. on the economic trade front we will discuss concerns of

aspects of policies we think have protectionist caspar securely tied this effortsect with innovation of policy and ways that could access key sectors of the chinese economy. this is both informal and formal sessions to have a sustained dialogue in a friendly way which allows us i to move forward with a strategic importance to both.ce i we know 12 under mess -- underestimate that fact but i think the answers to most of thee questions are ae that we had it in a positiven a direction for the most part n the nature of theseat problems are such that our interests are shared in terms leasing or swim together on issues ranging from global economic

growth to a proliferation to protecting the sealanes and other challenges in our common interests but we need to make sure and as we continue our support for china's growing role of thesu' economy and political structure that the growth isa a positive contribution to the security and economic growth of the world and growth and prosperity do not come at the expense of others and ready to play a constructive role in the security and economic and health issues.t that is a challenge that can be met and we are committed to work with china to achieveeve. the and we're looking forward to a very sustained engagement in beijing two weeks' time. two thank you for your attention and i look forward to your questions.laus [applause] >> the floor is open to

questions please identify who you are at a really have less than half an hour please make it a question and not an extended comment.ca please. >>n >> is a secretary talking about the taiwan strait had you see the president our recent remarks to the effect in in the interview with cnn we will never ask united s states to fight forta erredyo taiwan's more on its own strength three relieve united states will never be dragged into a potentiallyy bloody war or are you concerned the president amount may be distancing itself from the united

states? >> we are encouraged by the relations between taiwan and the prc we believe a strategy of engagement looks for peaceful resolution of the issues for the common future this is something that in the end we have believed that is best dialoguethrough and we encourage beijing to that it can respond tucci common ground to build trust in discussions on the economic cooperation framework are particularlyn important and it provides a foundation of for both sides to do with each other this is a situation where conflict is in nobody'swhat interest and what would happen if it came about? the goal is to avoido full-size to look for a

peaceful pea resolution in both sides and the parties of both sides.ed s >> you mentioned sea lanes securities a number of times. >> goal is happy to do that, admiral. >> with respect of maritime cooperation is seems there is a window with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief with the chinese and that falls right into energy security. a question i asked with respect to global climate change issue are we saying the chinese have been increasing interest and a trust and confidence were demonstrating there already pretty confident? >> as i alluded briefly in

more detail earn the earlier speech one of the great challenges is how we adapt we understand and accept the law with economic growth that country's 10 to develop the capabilities which is not necessarily objectionable at the same time because china's approach lack of transparency that we like wee do have questions about long-term intentions and is why everyone to strengthen the opportunity from military to military extension because we have a good plan over military modernization but also in terms of doctrine and its operations but to give us the assurance that what they're seeking to achieve is i consistent with the security and broader political economic interest.to to the extent china has say

greater ability to counter piracy that is clearly welcome to go further out it is a contributor but because there are other aspects especially in the maritime field we would like to know the goals and intentions to k build the trust between our leaders foresd us to understand what that is about. we hope to persuade thewh chinese the world we live requires more cooperation not competitionetit and neither side will benefit from a military competition between china and any other neighbors. this is a situation where we learn from experience thatth the risks associated with those kinds of competition are severe and nobody wins

in the long term thatat is why dialogue is so critical and why we try to persuade our counterparts so we don't lose the opportunity to discuss area where we have concerns. >> on the recently completed northentl korea meeting, are you getting a sense the chinese are getting closer to seeing the u.s. argument that north as korea is a strategic threat to china or are they still trying to keep big going? in that regard has the incident shows, regardlessess of who is judged to be at fault ultimately it does seem to have started a discussion of a level of

three and military intelligence. hideous think it is correct to think about the u.s enhanced relationship in the military strategic sphere leveraging fact on the chinese progress to see our point* ofess view? or am i mixing apples and oranges? >> i will begin with a few general observations. personal that the chinese speak for themselves with the assessment of the situation of north korea i am sure they will haveown something to say about that the first there is a strong understanding that stability in then region is in the interest of all of the neighbors and that is common interest and aspects of north korea's behaviorcu

particularly the nuclears, activities is a threat to that stability and we have common interests blinds the other five party and six-party talks together as well as other instability coming down of north korea. thatorea is from malt multilaterally and other combinations of the parties in the region. i think no country can feel entirely at ease with the situation in north korea right now and we're working for ways to work together and a way that enhances common security s of all of north korea's neighbors. in terms of our engagement, it is hard to imagine a much more enhanced capacity of the relationshipev we have that the combined command is almost a unique example of two military's

better deeply intertwined ineepl dealing with the security challenges and we work together in a remarkably united way to address those challenges. whether we need to make specific adjustments is something i am sure we will take a look at but it is hard to imagine and that extends not only to the operation no day to day but level, thetical level of copper wrote -- co-operation between the unitedcoop states is unprecedented.i am and i am very encouraged by the degree to which we're. looking and working so closely together but also the strong contribution are making to our efforts in afghanistan and piracy and

other issues that is a remarkably strong important bilateral relationship that looking andch working so closely together and why we're consulting closely on all aspects of the challenges on the peninsula and i am confident ntin collaboration will continue as we move forward. >> you seem to be willing in yourm speech to link the incident to the future of nuclear talks is their annual guidance you give on what the u.s. is prepared to do? it seems there is a linkage to north nor korea. >> i willat resist all ofre a those ifs in your question. we have made no conclusions and continuing the investigation will do thisughl early and objectively not just south korea but it is a multinational effort it is

very poor it is very broad based and objective assessment i don'tobje propose speculate how this will turn out because we don't know yet to. we really want the facts of to the desperate at the same time we will follow them where tim they go and draw conclusions but i do mean to say that we cannot be indifferent to this event. it is a very deep tragedy for southre korea they are entitled to a full explanation as possible as t to whato caused it too and we will work with them to do that. until we have clarity it is important to be careful the levying of possibilities but right now is president inm terms of actions going forward and ever respect until we know the results

and what those are. >> a very serious issue i was smiling only because i was recalling my stint at the national security council him explaining to me as an academic i would like to deal with hypothetical questionsike t but as a member f the administration neverom ever answer a hypothetical question so it is a pleasure to watch you. [laughter] >> china just announced it wanted to supply a reactors to pakistan under the p agreement that is not a grandfathered by its entry. >> as you suggested from youresti question i think that question is what is

established in have is it fit in with the iaea? this is still under is discussion it is important from our perspective that all countries live up to their commitments it is grandfathered and something we have not reached the final conclusion but it is important to scrupulously honored these commitments we will want to continue to engage in the question whether this is permitted under the and standings of the iaea. >> i hope you could expand on youruld comments on u.s.-china security dialogue afghanistan and pakistan you noted increasingly figures into the security dialogue and it has been constructed

i did not quite hear if thats was a common objective for interest? i wonder if there is a meaningful distinction and just expand to dig deeper chinese investment or commercial activity consistent with u.s. objectives afghanistan or pakistan and is it insufficient on political affairs? >> as i said we have hadav discussion on these issues several times in beijing and elsewhere in meetings involving afghanistan and i think it is largely to coincidence we seek a stabletan afghanistan that is responsive to its people and that it does not harbor

violent extremist with afghanistan's neighbors who the basic framework does have this shares of interest we welcomed chinese economic advancement creating jobs and economic opportunity is. the long term strategy to o create a stable pakistan for other sources of income and the afghan people so as long as that is transparent and generally accepted we dlcome back. we have a dialogue with the chinese and somberly with pakistan to have the pakistan government to meet the needs of the people toe provide the alternative to thep extremism that threatens

the pakistani state. so remain interested objectives are never identical in any case but it is important all the neighbors said to have a big state -- stake work together and we are encouraged by china's willingness to be a partner. >> and mr. secretary, earlier today we heard day topple panel talking about clean energy environment and it was then interesting factoid that came out about what happened at the tail end of the conversation between obama and his chinese counterpart inle copenhagen and when i

think is fair to say a significant difference within the policy elite with energy and climate which leads me to ask a question that are you seeing that kind of dissension on the other two components you have identified in secretary clinton's speech? s have you seen that kind of division or dissension?nd second, is a growing court is it static? is there a way to characterize thewhat nature of political o differences ofn ch opinion are like in the way

to talk about right versus left and tea party? >> better-known there is a chinese equivalent of the tea party but i will not go there. [laughter] climate and energy issues are caught up in economic issues obviously have different impacts oft different sectors of society by climate change and disruption and the cost of mitigation fall in different sectors so i'm confident there is a lively debate in china among the various stakeholders with the issues but the role of leadership to big river the national interest lies than one positive side that we haveeen seen there seems to be leadership in china that

when you put ita' together, china's futur' depends on china taking significant measures to address this challenge there is a lot of reasons why a the chinese leadership is moving in that direction. but i think it is significant with china this seem to be a growingog leadership thatni china needsfr to get out and inon china is interest to adopt for the future that is the notable transition and i am confident about that and i think they recognize that is. the solution rather than. the problem.ha carbon greenhouse gases is tiede up with more environmental damage that

gives a stronghem incentive with particulates and other aspects of the cost the leading edge with more of issuesed prerelease as people are increasingly tired of polluted air or water and day recognition to beseen seen in the international community as not to helping solution as to what took place as china will be viewed as we will if we don't carry our responsibility. whenever the continuing tha forces are whoever sums up the senior leadership seems to be moving forward at least in the right direction

>> >> at the end of obama's visit last year as. communique there is a mutual commitment to accelerate by the investment treaty talks and since that time by the model to come out at the end of last year toare give a a further acceleration that is stuck at a technical lover. >> we're still working on it [laughter] terms ofbout in your talks? >> this is obviously a terrible concern and has obviously in the unitedtes, states and our investment in

china and in the long term it is counter productive a long history shows this industry protectionism more these kinds of tools of the long run 10 to distort even the country diso who could provide its own interestsfirs everything china's own long-term interest would benefit from the free and open playing fieldzotu.s., couln even basis. clearly we would like to see china extend that into the procurement field. i will leave that to secretary geithner to elaborate on that. i think the chinese certainly understand our concerns and we would hope they would be responsive. we think that in the long term, the system in china is one that will permit a troop level playing field in china bringing

world-class investment to china from around the world. >> thank you for your remarks today. in interviews in beijing across the last two weeks as well as in shanghai, it was always highly praised and almost immediately followed by, we need this by our side, the chinese side, as are opening to give the room for policy innovation and relationships to be built at the working level. the follow-up would go, we would then like a secondary track where are working level officials could talk with your working level officials to build the kind of ideas that can push up into that space which has been opening up. i do not to put you on the spot. is this something the u.s. side has thought about, is open to, or would be willing to propose it.

>> i would say first that i think we do think we are doing some of that. i would not call it that it is the intercession a work that takes place between the high-level players but we recognize for these to be effective we have to do the work in hav do between the forl sessions bourke-white know many colleagues are working on the individual issues say that is exactly what they are engaging we probably do need to do more. i know one of the meetings between the secretary counselors they talked about the need to strengthen the ongoing t mechanisms so they're not just episodic said to produce sustained work we clearly to do more and will come on a more systematic basis. >> this is the last question >> not to use the term if

but the final investigation report from the government has been penalized can the schedule can be rearranged? >> deily thing you want to say on that issue is i don't see the linkage between the two.we h we will continue to have discussions on the korean peninsula but would not sit whatever discussions rehab influenced by this particular incident but that want to makewe sure it serves the interests of our two intest on the peninsula. >> thank you>> very much to

give this overview. [applause] [inaudible conversations] good morning. why don't we go ahead and get started? i am richard bush a director of center of north east asian studies here at brookings. my co-host is kenneth lieberthal director of our china center and it is our joint privilege to welcome you here today. the subject is u.s. china

cooperation. washington and beijing will convene the second strategic and economic dialogue the first was last summer and at that first dialogue obama gave a speech that captured his vision of our bilateral relationship and among other things he said the relationship between the united states and china will shape the 21st century that makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world that must underpin the partnership and that is a responsibility to gather that we bear. are believe replaced to make progress on the most important issues of our times. my confidence is rooted in the fact they share a mutual interest people will benefit

and the world will be better off because of the ability to partner is a prerequisite two on the most pressing global challenges. kenneth lieberthal and i happen to agree with the president challenges like the global economy in nonproliferation and climate change have moved to the center of the u.s.-china relationship and you can see that in the statement in what was released last november and we also believe cooperation between the united states and china and other major powers is the only way to address those challenges and cooperation is the optimum load of interaction among major powers in the increasingly will bipolar order. the president obama addition does raise questions. number one to the united states and china each

understand the challenges like global economy and non-proliferation in the same way? each of these has its inherent flaw eight -- logic that they may or may not affect. question number two, do we sure mutual interest on these problems? what is the actual degree of overlap between how the united states seized the states and how china does. number three come even if the answer to those questions confirms or conforms to president obama and his views have effective has ever cooperation been? does it truly address the challenge at its core or just superficial? is is significantly limiting what we can achieve together? what is the likelihood that

the current mode of cooperation will affectively address or contain each of these challenges? that is the purpose of today's session to us a access the china cooperation concerning climate change, iran and north korea and the global economy for each of the issues you have one presenter who will address the challenge of what i call logic of the problem and a second presenter considering that context discuss situations specifically we will discuss the morning with climate change after a break for lunch we will hear deputy secretary of state jim steinberg who will offer the it obama administration perspective then we will do non-proliferation and global economy. thank you again for coming by yield the floor to my a

colleague kenneth lieberthal who will chair the first session. >> thank you very much richard a genuine pleasure to welcome you here today for this conference and 12 expressway appreciation to our speakers to have come from out of town. the first panel is on the major issue of global climate change. this is clearly an issue where the united states and china are the two biggest players on the issue unfortunately since each of us account for global greenhouse gas emissions every year. as an issue whose focus is changing, the u.s. hysterically has clearly been the largest single contributor, a peculiar term, a responsible country in terms of greenhouse gas

emissions and since the gasses remain in the atmosphere for a long time coming history matters but as reflected in future the u.s. has peaked in the greenhouse gas emissions and the issue is how much will be reduced those and with what schedule? china is nowhere near its peak but on a very steep upward curve so while the focus has been on the u.s. historically it will shift to china accounted for a large percentage of the increase of greenhouse gas emissions as we move forward. the whole world is looking at the u.s.-china relationship to be a major factor in global responses to climate change both in terms of mitigation and terms of adaptation and for the final facet of this before turning to our speakers many think if the relationship itself both sides now see the climate

change issue as possibly an area in which we can develop mutual levels of cooperation and in the process and increase strategic trust and also an area that is so early on and still so much more needs to be done it wound up being the opposite which is the inability to get our priorities lit bind up reasonably well together and an area that may produce increase in a strategic distrust and increase in obstacles to dealing with this issue overall. the issue itself is of enormous global importance and u.s. and china are important players but early on in the age of this issue bilateral as a key player in the multilateral day irena. we have two terrific panelists to introduce this topic and discuss it.

i will not simply read what y you have in front of you but i will not that's the william antholis is managing director of the brookings institution, hello boss. [laughter] he has had a keen interest in the climate change issued and he and strobenestne talbott president of brookings this week on friday are calleding a book fast forward which is on the climate change issued so ifel this panel what's your appetite come on friday you can enjoy the full banquet. trevor houser is a visiting fellow at the peterson institute of international economics across the street and has done enormously insightful work on the u.s.-china interaction on the climate change issue and just had a six months to end

working with our special -- specialist on climate change leading upew through and to copenhagen city brings fresh and practical experience to the discussion this morning we will have both presentations then open it up q&a each presentation is roughly 20 minutes and we will begin with trevor houser. >> thanks to richard and ken and brookings asking me to join the panel. for those of us but toyota in the field of china policy we'll stand on his shoulders and three years ago when i provided my humble initial offering into this phase at the honor of have been going to respond which is the most terrifying and rewarding

experiences of my career. he asked me to join a similar event last fall which are was unable to do because i was doing a stint in the state department slight am grateful i could respond possibly to this request now that my schedule is a little more my knows opinion nows myhat a i amhe free to offer no but i am not in the code of silence of a government and somalked about this before. i will lay out some of the contacts the four restate and and map out some issues going forward. to go play the table for the conversation but also because i have been this close to theh issue without strategic thinking so i will leave that to go also a newborn child by a slow at getting back up to that level of strategic thinking.

the current round of climate negotiations launched two 1/2 years ago in indonesia and the u.s. andan china were the center of why the international community felt it necessary to kick off. the existing international architecture with the kyotoge protocol had to absences the first was the united states which overtime has become increasingly politicallyntri untenable to continue to be in the kyoto protocol and itan only had mission reduction commitments for developed countries and in the decade between when the kyoto protocol was signed and the ball the conference it made it clear in a long-termt solution to this problemogra could not be a developed country solution of loan.

so in addition buoyed by aid the convictions for climate change and awareness of the beforenferne week the bally conference started out clore won the nobel peace prize and kickedize a off the negotiations to conclude in copenhagen. the two years between broadway and copenhagen thern international community saw encouragingat movement morale was developed in been in australia the labor party won and that brought about more ambitious action and policy followed by a change of government in the u.s. and the obama administration both raise the profile of climate policy in the domestican agenda and greengage international negotiations than the governmentds changed in china and china and that brought

about more erred targeted japanese. weco saw in september last year for the first time china announced the countrywide climate change and hu jintao speaking at the general assembly said it would do three things. it would increase primary c energy of 15% and increased force coverage by one point* 3 billion acres and 4 million acres, and reduce the carbon by a significant amount by 2020 they would be with that 40 or 44% improvement that is the first time it ever made a reduction target it came a few days after the obama administrationde announced the goal of the

17% reduction by 2020 followed by continuous reduction thereafter and after china made their announcement come of by the time the copenhagen conference started we had the economy a wide, policies are targets from all major economies. also over the past two years bilateral cooperationexpa expanded the obama administration reinvigorated a process under the bush administration and that a group of leaders july of last year produced a communique that foresaw a pathway pulling their weight and bilateral relations last summer we and ourin counterparts have a memorandum of understanding that mapped out a pathway

for what the two countries could do together and as kentrod said in the introduction this could either be a pillar in the bilateral relationship and one of the earliest areas of cooperation pretty much the first thing carteratty did nor dr. normal way sayingatio agreement to serve as the of foundation of 30 plus years of energy corporation or 8.of strategic mistrust and intention. could go all of that was announced last july was mapped out a set of principles going forward than in november during the president's trip to beijing ferris clean energy initiatives to start implementation that memorandum of understanding and a similar set to so we h have thisav positive momentum

of domestic policy but none of that was translating to the international negotiations with the international climate agreement which for two years was completely mired in the debates over both content and form. there are a lot of views as to why the internationalst negotiations struck and at the core the most important issue in the difficulty of translating that into the actual treaty has to do with the legacy of climateag institutions and agreements love with the uncertainty about theut future. we have three positions that d are difficult to reconcile. you have developed countries. the kyoto protocol to cane continue to be in that framework without the united states prepare you have the united states the obama administration notrgs willing to not sign the kyoto protocol

but the. a binding internationalow agreement and willing todeve allow offered differentiation between two but countries in developing countries but if we sign the country all countries need to stand behind their action and be bound legally they can commit to different things but no justification comy for some to take voluntary bou action and others to be legally bound and for china and india the quito protocol works pretty well and while those countries have puttic forward significant domestic policy they have gordy translated that into the case of china law they are fairly confident they can meet the targets they have laid out for 2020 their answer to the pathway after that. if china would agreed to a legally binding treaty inif c which they took legally binding commitments and that

had goals like long-term reductions that might c apply -- imply a future chinese commitment them with th the leadership thinks they could deliver there's a significant difference with climate policy and other areas of international law like trade. when trade negotiators, with an agreement to reduce tariffs says straightforward if you could get the legislature to vote for acute. you callp customs and you drop the tariff if you'vechan readge to climate reduction it requires a broad array of policy tools and mandates and pricing we don't have much experience how effective that is just look at the u.s. d experience with the wind and solar incentives to get a good example. thanks to some a significant engagement directly by heads of state in copenhagen we

could sidestep the ultimate questions who is bound and who is not and produce a political accord with broad agreement on the key areas of substance. more importantly the copenhagen i accord signified a fundamental shift in the approach to this problem is internationally from the top bottom-up approach riyadh get together to allocate the pain and negotiate domestic policy and who needs to do what to the bottom-up approach and offer those up and take stock how we're o doing going forward. that bottom-up approach also means we will see movement going forward in multiple forms. hopefully a series of decisions to move forward progress on finance on transparency, adaptation and

technology it is challenging because there is uncertainty what happens to the kyoto protocol that does not ano actually stop in 2012 and expected parties are expected to take on another commitment so that is tricky. we will see more work on the economy is particularly good teetwenty and work on some of the issues of health addressp climate change like the deployment of clean energy through forums like the new clean energy that secretary to announced for the first time will meet this summer in washington. and in addition going from top down to bottom of going from the climate oriented focus and in countries that a matter public support to reduce emissions for the sake of climate change has taken a hit in the past six months. fortunately the means to the

end the deployment of clean energy technology has local and environmental protection, economic growth, employment creation. the narratives continued to be important and drive policy prize suspect we willha seet that more in the years ahead.rs there is a good news story that is if we move from the narrative how to reallocate the pain to take advantage some of the negotiations get easier instead of get thinking we need to wait until china moves for us to move then there is an advantage to being the first and the space-bar bill but it comes up other challenges that well increase in the profile to the deployment of clean energy all countries require either directly from a

government or indirectly so there is strong political support and all countries to ensure the economic activity created occurs two firms and workers so in the u.s. stimulus package local content requirement fromnt china, this is a trend that if it continues to escalate creates significant challenges globally. if we make everything soup to nuts in the clean energy system energy prices will be higher, deployment will be lower and the ability toity tackle the problem will be less.ll b but if we trust that i also need to address china will buy things that the u.s. knows better and that requires being smart about where we have comparative vantage and prioritizing the foreign trade and investment

policy. are read on the flight down from new york there was a quote in a newspaper article saying when you go to thes negotiating table with china you need to know what you 12 and the presupposes a strategic you of the u.s. role of the global economy but i think we're still searching for that. in the clean t energy space we need it critically is that t is the narrative driving things forward. just a couple more comments and i will wrap up. the driving policy and whether addressing energy security borer addressing employment creation in a way that also reduces emissions at the same time to tackle climatens change will deliver meaningful results but it is not a long-term solution but ultimately to meet the types of goals the scientific community has laid off globally it is actually

costing money or heard to do we have a little bit of room with what policy works wes, don't have to have a top-down approach we have flexibility and as we gofl forward the margin of error it will be lowered and to have a top-down legally bindingwn leg approach so we neb to begin to lay the goodin groundwork for that now and that means a few things. first passing legislation. we will be and a different place in 2020 chinese per-capita it emission will be higher than europe in 2020 and china's economy will be significantly higher