>> although he has stepped out he has given me strict instructions for this conversation, and so i will do my best to keep us on it. there's a lot of the waterfront we are going to be covering today when it comes to the questions surrounding the war in afghanistan. i think the mission of this group is to look specifically at

what our real options, possibilities, and opportunity in this moment when it comes to thinking about the american engagement in afghanistan, what about negotiations, what's realistic. there's a lot of talk, some of the clocks are very generally set when it comes to kabul versus washington and vice versa and i think we have pretty much an all-star group of people to help navigate as through, cutting through beyond what's rhetoric and what's reality at this moment in time. and i can't think of anyone better to start us off a ambassador dobbins who we were just discussing up front, is also a me was the architect of this perhaps not entirely waiting of this status code we been in with president karzai for the last decade, and i'm hoping he can start us off today by walking through what some of our options are. steve. >> thank you.

the american objective in afghanistan is often stated as preventing that country from becoming a sanctuary for al qaeda. i would amend that slightly by saying we want to prevent the countries from becoming sanctuary for or an ally with al qaeda. that was it status prior to 2001. it wasn't simply a sanctuary. it was an ally of al qaeda. and that's why it's different from yemen or somalia or pakistan, places with weak governments or no government at all, but not a government that is actively a live with the global terrorist movement. that's what afghanistan could become again if the taliban were able to resume power backed a al qaeda, as it is at least for the moment. now, the mood in the united states is pretty pessimistic about afghanistan and our chances of succeeding, and i

think that's to some degree been reflected in today's discussions. interestingly enough, afghans have a rather different perception of their future and don't share the pessimism that pervades american opinion. if you ask afghans whether the country is moving in the right direction, 59% of them say they think it is. that's versus 28% of americans who have a similar opinion regarding the united states. if you ask them the classic ronald reagan question, are you better off today than you were five years ago, 63% of afghans responded yes, they are better off. this is contrast to a drop of 40% in u.s. consumer confidence index over the last year. we tend to think of president karzai as illegitimate, inept and corrupt.

in afghanistan he enjoys a 62% personal popularity rating, rather his government enjoys a 62% approval rating, and he personally has an 82% popularity rating. i imagine most recent american presidents would be very pleased with those kinds of numbers. support for the was troop presence in the latest polls is at 62% in afghanistan, which contrast to 31% support for american troop presence in afghanistan in american opinion. why, what is going on? i think it's easy to explain. the gdp has gone up 300%. there's 8 million children in school today versus 1 million in 2001. 80% of afghans now have access to at least some basic health care facilities. infant mortality is down,

longevity is up. assumed that children to in school today stay in school, in 10 years afghanistan's literacy rate will have tripled and perhaps the most interesting, over half the population now have televisions. were as virtually none had telephones, nine years ago. security does continue to deteriorate in afghanistan, and that's a serious source of concern. the u.n. said 2700 afghan civilians were killed last year in the war. and that's a number that is up from the previous year. but 2700, that would be a bad week in iraq, 2006. not a bad year. and attack iraqi figures are still higher than they are in afghanistan. so i think that, you know, the afghans project their future the same way we do. that is, they compare their recent past to the contest and the projected to the future. so their life has improved and a

project that any future. most americans feel that their life hasn't improved over the last couple of years and they're projecting that into the future. and i think that explains why a lot of the debate in this country is not so much over ends and needs in afghanistan, or even the prospect for success, but the costs. and the costs are now the dominant factor in addressing the future of americans strategy. now, our theme today is, our solutions rather than descriptions of the problem. and i think tom pickering in the last panel talked a good deal about the century foundation report that he and i and a number of other american and non-american officials were instrumental in putting together, supporting the prospect for a peace negotiation in afghanistan. i don't want to repeat what tom

had to say. i will note that there is very strong public support throughout afghan society for some kind of negotiated solution. this support is not reflected in some of the political leadership in kabul and the civil society elements of kabul for obvious reasons as they are somewhat off -- apprehensive about the outcomes. it does transcend with the other communities in the country, and president karzai is clearly reflecting public opinion when he endorses these prospects. my own view is that these negotiations are worth pursuing, even if they fail. i think the rest toward the taliban and for the insurgency are must greater than the risks of the government and/or nader in the united states.

they are a fighting a jihad, a holy war, and it's much more difficult for them to justify both talking and fighting at the same time than it is for us. the karzai government, the u.s. are fighting for represent a government in afghanistan, and the people want a peace negotiation that is perfectly consistent with the overall mission of nato and the afghan government to give them what they want and to make a genuine try. i do think that there is a reasonable prospect of negotiations could succeed in delivering what i suggested was america's bottom line objective, which is to prevent afghanistan from again becoming not just a sanctuary for al qaeda, but an ally with al qaeda. and that should be the bottom line objective of the united states in any such come in any such negotiations. but negotiations can only succeed if they don't have to succeed. negotiations can only succeed if

one has a viable alternative to success. and that means that in this case the united states has to be preparing for two different futures. one in which negotiations succeed and is a component of that negotiation. the u.s. agrees to withdraw its forces. and there are a number of other components of the agreement as well. the alternative is no success, a situation in which the afghan civil war continues more or less indefinitely into the future. and in order to achieve u.s. objectives, the united states is going to have to be engaged to some extent. it's perfectly reasonable coming back to the issue of costs to do a cost-benefit analysis on afghanistan and to determine that maybe the costs of preserving and afghanistan that is not an ally with al qaeda is too high and that we would be

better off cutting our costs and accepting higher risks. what's not really acceptable is to suggest, i think, that you can cut the costs and still not increase the risks. people i've talked about moving from a counterterrorism -- counter insurgency to the counterterrorism strategy on artemis that would be much less resource intensive, but you can't conduct a counterterrorist strategy in afghanistan if a country is governed by the taliban. that means in order to conduct a counterterrorism strategy somebody else has to win the counterinsurgency strategy. that is, they have to prevent the taliban from taking over the governed. if you're more confident that cause i can do a better job than we can, find. advocate and remove only two counterterrorism. if you have doubts about that, then moving in a more deliberate pace as indeed the administration intends, to transfer these responsibilities is appropriate. so again we need to prepare for two very different futures, and we need to make both of them credible.

we need to make negotiations credible. we need to make negotiations persuasive to the other side by making equally clear we are prepared to stay. >> my role in this conference is sort of like to jump in whenever i need to. susan glasser is will go. i want to shower thanks and praise christine fair is joining us from uc berkeley. christina's assistant professor at the center for peace and security studies at georgetown, author of drones war, very provocative and important and recently appeared in foreign policy. i've been advised that while you speak, which is a susan glasser you to do, while you were speaking just turn down the volume and it will cut down the feedback on your own computer. now i turn it back to susan. >> christine, we're looking forward to hearing your thoughts as well on what our actual

realistic options for proceeding at this point. can you hear us? >> actually there's a lot of static. >> can you turn down the volume? >> i'm trying to do that now. is that better? >> a little bit more. it might be a so we're going to work on -- >> is that okay? >> okay. >> sorry about that. i have the -- it's a little better than a carrier pigeon. >> we are good now. >> so we're good now. obviously i missed a good chunk of the portion because i was actually trying to sleep, so i have a little bit of concern that some of my points might be redundant. and i don't know the extent to

which you guys have already spoke, spoken about the pakistan issue, but this has been one of my long-standing critiques of expanding the counterinsurgency effort in afghanistan, has been because of the absolute impossibility of engaging pakistan on this issue. in several conversations over the last few weeks surrounding the ray davis issue, you once again here this discussion of the so-called trust deficit. and advise always been critical of this construction. i remain so. it strikes me, this isn't a trust deficit. this is a surplus. they understand that is where trying to get an end state in afghanistan figured out, that the space that we used to have to fanatical important differences is constricting. so put a fine point on that our need to go after the haqqani network, obviously they have

been relocated elsewhere, in pakistan desire and, indeed, requirement to maintain these assets are really coming into sharp conflict. over the last 10 years or so, what we have largely done is we try to finesse this, that yes, it's true that pakistan and units is what different strategic goals over some longer term time horizon, but an issue for example, like al qaeda the pakistanis are going to help us out. what is becoming increasingly clear over the last year or so is that pakistan is trying to figure out completely separate ending in afghanistan. they've always done that. but i think we would be behooved to try to understand what it is the pakistanis are starting. i think it does reflect some of the conversations i picked up in the last few minutes of the previous bigger. was that jim dobbins? >> yes. >> okay. sorry.

it sounded like you but all i can see some dude -- [inaudible] >> sorry, dude. one thing i have noticed in the last year or so of my several trips to pakistan is that the pakistanis themselves are very worried about the remnant of the so-called afghan taliban. one of the consequences of u.s. and nato successful efforts in enemy these different levels of leadership is that they have had to be replaced very quick. the people that are coming in to fill those, hate them as much as they hate us to have a different relationship with the isi and al qaeda commanders of 10 years ago. they see pakistan's role as manipulative, serving pakistan's interest, but not that of afghan. so the pakistanis themselves are

trying to figure out how do we regain the momentum, not the momentum. how do we regain control over this organization that has really evolved over the last 10 years. it's not the same organization it was 10 years ago. the very fact that pakistan itself is scrambling to figure out its own in state about this organization does strongly suggest our strategy about thinking about the taliban really needs to change. and i think fundamentally one of my biggest concerns about the counterinsurgency effort really goes back to pakistan. the more troops when you have on the ground there means we are ever more dependent upon pakistan, not less. these differences that were significant that somehow, over the last two years have become much more difficult, and i'd like to add that is no longer just issues about al qaeda and the taliban that we're very

concerned about with pakistan, we are also very concerned about others. i do know how much you guys have talked about the multiple security concern that we have situated there in pakistan. but there is this enormous irony from my point of view that we have chosen a strategy that says we need to stabilize afghanistan so we can stabilize pakistan. but, in fact, it's not -- what happened in afghanistan is going to be very significant degree over determined by pakistan itself, right? that's my view. if you would put your pakistani goggles on for a second, since 9/11, if security equity -- [inaudible] so for example, under the u.s. security umbrella the indians have been able to develop a presence in afghanistan so they were not able to develop before we are there. so this gives rise to i think a big difference, a difference

between what pakistanis say publicly and what they actually say privately. i know kiang has said repeatedly he needs to have. [inaudible] the white house played by saying afghanistan we're going to to reassure the pakistanis. it's just the opposite i worked with pakistan army for very long time to get and spend quite a bit of time with a lot of them over the summer. i'm going back this summer. what's clear is no matter what general kayani said, this is the way many give up her act without a clue folks the major level, they want us out and they want us there for the reason i just had. the longer we stay, the longer the indians can basically free right under our security umbrella. winning that they simply want -- [inaudible] so i see a huge number of discontinuity between our goals in afghanistan and what we can accomplish when we consider what

we're able to do with the pakistanis. [inaudible] a bunch of us have worked on how you fundamentally reshape pakistan's around its current. [inaudible] the process have adopted such far, strategic conventional weapons systems, none of these things are adequate to convince pakistan that its current approach is anything but helpful. do we really have to reconsider what we want to do, what we can do in afghanistan, will have a more holistic understanding of what pakistan is and will be a that is in the pakistan's aspire or hope to attain. so going back, i've been a

fairly strong opponent of this thing, vice president biden, i think there's a lot of adheres to the counterinsurgency notion that i apologize if i did hear all of commons critique of the. but let me put out on the table what i think there's some advantages to this. by having a more easily by having a more easily sustainable footprint in afghanistan, where we are not strictly dependent, we are able to create a space, we can play a harder ball game with pakistan that we can right now. i'm not convinced that we cannot continue to go after al qaeda with other counterinsurgency footprint. for the following reason. we know what's going on right now is a negotiation about it so far, a status force agree. karzai has no interest and i can imagine -- let's start with fundamentalist option.

i think is a low probability event given even the abysmal operational cascading. [inaudible] my analysis is absolutely pointless. i'm going to take it as a given that we're not going to have taliban 10.0 running. so if we put that on the table, this is like saying. [inaudible] karzai has no interest in al qaeda coming back, in this we have barely had the outlined interest. so we negotiate through the process,. [inaudible] from which we can continue to prosecute and so this thing on al qaeda. i don't know how much. [inaudible]

it's hard to say the taliban are any worse than some of the savages we've made as our allies. given that so many are opposed to the insurgency, i'm also not convinced that if we were -- [inaudible] our intelligence it doesn't improve. so one of the arguments for thinking the status quo, as claimed the counterinsurgency footprint is the quality of intelligence. i think it's a fairly facetious arguing to say our prime opposition for giving, you know, i got a high quality conference, i'm not persuaded by the. so just in conclusion in making the defense, counterterrorism plot, by getting out of a footprint that acts on the belt, they seem so odious, and finding

some midpoint of tolerance of the taliban i think it's entirely possible that our intelligence on al qaeda actually, unicom in closing i think realize what our priorities in afghanistan that focuses on al qaeda, not the taliban, not only allows us to see a confrontation with pakistan that we can pursue our other objective, i think a far more important in afghanistan than they are in pakistan. but ultimately, are much more finesse will in terms of money, lies and assorted things the population in afghanistan, deny safe and pakistan are willing to tolerant. >> christine, thank you so much. i know we can't see you but we are very grateful for your provocative comments. and fact i'm hoping we can get as quickly as possible to a conversation among this great group. i'm going to ask brian to go next. and brian come if you talk at the point i think that would be better for our c-span viewers. if we can keep a tight will have

more time to debate and discuss as well as get your question. >> thank you susan. and thank you, everybody, who has come here today because i think is a very important event. the first panel i think really punched above its weight. it had a lot of expertise but i think it offered new ideas about how we can address this challenge. and what joshua files called the malarkey of tragic courses, i see it as a classic humpty dumpty problem. i was think about this event this morning and think about all of the think tank report that came out last fall. including my organization, the center for american security come a bipartisan commission on the council and foreign relations task force, and others that if you look at the broad contours of which proposed in there, there's a lot that's quite similar amongst those recommendations. and a lot that is not new. what i hope this conversation i think does this pushes us forward in this policy

challenge. this administration is wrestling with. but it's clear to me at this stage nearly 10 years into this war we still lack a coherent strategy. we still lack a coherent strategy that sticks together. i was thinking about this and why is this the case there at the risk before i get to where to go from here, i think it's important, i do this a lot in these and the government. what is the strategy? it includes a statement of objectives and desired ends. the ends need to be realistic and achievable and well-defined. there needs to be ways and means designed to achieve those ends. they need to be prioritized in imports, and the roles of responsibility of key players in executing those ways and means must be codified. that's a very basic i think definition that we often miss inside of government, and also in the think tank community where we have the luxury of thinking about things as opposed to doing and click the inbox of those inside the government. there are three main reasons 10

years into where we still lack a strategy. very basic but i think it is important to think about and maybe provoke new thinking. number one, there's a multiplicity of factors that have a stake in the outcome. christine's comments talked about this. looking at from the pakistani perspective as opposed to ours. number one, there's a number of different actors with different interest to me to digest that here inside the beltway, understand our interest better, have included feingold, for those two events of interest but others operate that way. we quite often don't know about what are the strategic interests of other actors. we often don't know in some cases because the opaqueness. number two there's a wide range of collocated actions that each of these actors are undertaking. so to assess what's going on i think you get a sense of complexity, and you understand why we're in somewhat of a quagmire. number three, important for the d.c. discussion, there's a considerable gap between

america's impression of itself and our capacity to achieve stated outcomes. it's not only in afghanistan or pakistan. i work on the middle east also, and nearly for the last decade or so we have had presidents of the united states, president bush and the president obama, declare certain outcomes they want to achieve and then we don't achieve them. it has created what i call an efficacy crisis. this debate about the decline of american power which i don't completely except because i think there's something deeper going on. i think that's the nature of power in the international arena is changing. what it means, get what you want done and that there's a multiplicity of factors that could shape the. people have written about this more theoretically. that said, what do we do on afghanistan? six quick things that i will go through very quickly i hope. number one, i think we need to continue to question counterinsurgency doctrine which

has continued to dominate a lot of our decisions. we did this yesterday with john model at the center for american progress yesterday. it's my view that doctrine has important element in principle that can be applied in certain situations but we need to stop thinking about it like a stretch but i know i will get tweeted angry blogs just for stating this because it's almost become like a dogma. if you question it, it's like your questioning of religion. but the longer as it is called an counterinsurgency aspires to be like containment and deterrence was in the cold war. it cannot be because the seeds of a counterinsurgency strategy quite globally, it destroys itself potentially. it is not sustainable for a number of recent the network of large numbers of troops are not cost effective. number to the presence of foreign troops great security challenges that didn't exist before. number three, i think we see this, there's a potential legitimacy crisis of political actors we seek to support.

number four, this concerns me the most, it grows potentially, u.s. will to project its power in the world in different ways. i believe we need to be a global leader but i think we are devoting the political will on capitol hill to use resources to remain a global power. so number one we need to question that. number two, i think we need to have a goal, a 30 defined goal. disrupt, despair, defeat al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan is the goal. that is fine as far as it goes in terms of trying to marshal public domestic political support. but i think it also doesn't get us too much clarity in terms of what we're trying to build and achieve on the ground. icicle often as a stable and peaceful region of the world, south asia, as most were angry with itself and economically, politically and culture. you need to have a broad goal like that and stayed in proactively as opposed to in the

negative which our current goal is to disrupt, despair, defeat al qaeda with out defining what other conditions. number two, i think we need to identify that which we are going to do and that which we're not going to do. this will be the hardest thing to do and i'm trying to be a little bit prerogative here but we can't do it all. that runs against the grain of american culture, but we simply cannot do that a lot of things and we'll keep running in circles i think afghanistan if we don't recognize that. the last three think that we need to identify not only the interests and actors but what they can do and what they're already doing. i think james in the last to talk about statecraft. there are many faces you who have decades of experience who are engaged in statecraft and understand this. ambassador dobbins, ambassador pickering who was here before, understand what i've talked about in steve mentioned that getting others to pay defense for you, getting others to pull

their way. understand what the interest in what you're doing right now to achieve that which you want to achieve because right now it's all about us and a good bit of it we are bearing the burden. i do think we fully understand how to disentangle ourselves. number five, we need to identify multiple means to achieve those goals and not simply be focused on troop levels. we will go into another round of debates you and i'm sure it will be about the scope of the pace of withdrawal of u.s. troops. the thing that frustrated me in the fall of '09 when i came back from afghanistan is there was insufficient debate about the clinical and economic means that are available. ..

strategic ambiguity and flexibility. this is anathema to a lot of people who want certainty. they want a deadline to get out or they want to stay indefinitely in a long-term agreement. i will highlight two specific fittings. christine briefly mentioned it. it is foolish and this point for president, to have the impression we need a strategic framework agreement or a partnership agreement more than he needs it. that is the impression our current action is leaving right now. with all due respect to president hamid karzai and his government he is the leader of a relatively weak, pour and corrupt government and he has run circles around this for five or six years and we have allowed him to do that. our own american exceptional is and we have to get it right.

on pakistan, what was the phrase? the search third simplesse. brilliant. really important. at a certain point there's a great deal of utility in having a strategy that has some element of strategic ambiguity that leaves some questions in the mind because of an hour debate in the beltway is how do we reassure everybody that we are going to be with them in law run. we have a considerable amount of power that like it did issue used against us. weapons and resources we using to achieve certain ends because we're so bullish about getting where we want to go without thinking about what others do to pain the next tours. what i have sparks new thinking. some specifics and the questions and answers and look forward to other responses on the panel.

>> i see by the end of this we will have to take a vote on a counterinsurgency and whether it is a relative or not. we are looking forward to injecting a little bit of your thoughts about what is really realistic in terms of what we are talking about. the u.s. military slipping up in pakistan. is it going to be changing in the foreseeable future. how much of this is continuing a conversation we have been having for quite some time. >> thank you for the invitation. to be on this great panel. a few effect will points about some things that were said earlier today. in terms of a cost-benefit ratio at the height of the vietnam war the united states spent 9% of its gdp on the military. right now we're spending 1% of gdp in afghanistan so we won't

attack from afghanistan. the money is worth the than the money will go down as we draw down. of $15 trillion economy, $118 billion of whatever it is is a serious amount of money but not a game change returns of debt and other issues. in terms of painting the offense, 46 countries in afghanistan as part of a coalition. and canadian and danish troops died at a higher rate if you adjust for population than americans. i want to attach myself to many points in terms of the data. one dated point and want to answer which is the more likely to be murdered in washington d.c. than to be killed in the afghan war. the war in afghanistan by historical standards and absolute standards your six times more likely did be killed in new orleans than the war in afghanistan where 2800 civilians

died last year. when you adjust for population as jim mentioned more likely to be killed in iraq. one final point on the counter terrorism point. we tried the counter-terrorism approach and it was found wanting. the point of where we are today is we did this whole exercise in the first years of the afghan project. we spent roughly 30th after the conflict and will we spend in kosovo. we did it on the cheap and that is why we're here today having this conversation. why we're there is an interesting question. the president a a a very understandable mistake about narrowly defining it just about al qaeda which from a political viewpoint makes a lot of sense because which american want al qaeda back in afghanistan? the answer is none. there are other reasons one of which is unrealistic in terms of policy terms. that we have a moral obligation

to get right in afghanistan for is someone okay army before we leave. i think that is a reasonable thing for us to consider now we have over from their government and it is not al qaeda we need to be concerned about. when afghanistan was ruled by the taliban every terrorist group found a headquarters there and had a significant presence there. just to define it merely as a al qaeda is nodding of. stable south asia is surely part of this picture and the taliban are the taliban. the idea that these will turn into a group of henry kissingers overtime is ludicrous. we ran a controlled experiment on this issue for years in pakistan. two years ago baby had a policeman and burn down the girl's school and imposed a reign of terror. that is the taliban. they don't recognize the border between pakistan and afghanistan. there hosting not just al qaeda but the islamic movement in pakistan and the islamic jihad union. des could give a multiple set of

jihadists groups located there. this is who they are. where they doing in afghanistan? 75% were killed by taliban. there's a consistent campaign. not very well covered in the american press of chemical weapons attacks against girls schools all over the country in afghanistan. we want to reconcile even with people we find to be morally objectionable in one way or another. the people we keep talking about are not part of the taliban we are fighting. they're already reconciled. marla omar is a religious fanatic. he is not encouraging. he called himself commander of the faith which is a religious title indicating he is not just the leader of the taliban but of all muslims. this is not somebody you can easily do business with that he

has taken every opportunity to say he is not interested in negotiation or compromise. et ten years to reject al qaeda and its work. it never happened. they can also 9/11 was a mistake or osama bin laden was bad for us. they said nothing like this. the peace deal with the taliban is not encouraging. we had peace deals in pakistan into the gwen ifill, 2006. they reneged on every piece steel and took as an opportunity to regroup. the seizure by the pakistani syndicate they have a veto over these negotiations. that is not necessarily a bad thing. they have legitimate interests in afghanistan but this is knowledgeable negotiation with government and insurgents that pakistan and the table and the northern alliance at the table. these of the most powerful men in afghanistan spent years fighting the taliban. the head of the minister of the interior. very likely to be the next president of afghanistan. do you think they want to do with the taliban in significant

territorial compromise on principles? the answer is of course no. we have seen negotiations being performed up to nothing. we saw that debacle with the supposedly your of the taliban who was negotiating with the director of the government who turned out to be making quite a lot of money being an imposter. we are foggy about who we're dealing with. we simply don't know. finally. what do the taliban want. insurgency is a common problem. they know what they don't want, international forces south. does include democracy, elections? women working? does it include girls going to school? you know the answer to those questions and the answer is no. they never made that clear because it would be a problem for them in negotiations. negotiations are the way forward as if they have multiple potential advantages.

you create splits in the insurgency. they might do a deal with low hanging fruit. as the taliban are all united. it shows dissension in the ranks of the taliban. that is a good thing. it provides information about the movement. as jim said, allows -- takes away the moral high ground from the taliban. there are not involved in a phony war but a political process and become a sort of responsible. my final point is some interesting work about the conditions for insurgents or terrorists to come to a peace deal. i will give you four and think about how they work in afghanistan going forward. one is a mutual recognition of a military stalemate. if we had this conversation you're going would have said it is not looking good but it is better. taliban has military defeat in canada are. we are fed up with this war.

there is mutual rejection of the stalemate. strong leadership on both sides of the equation. omar is in control of the insurgency in afghanistan. that is a negative. third-party sponsors are important. the saudis were involved but for and al qaeda's principal goal is the monarchy. the taliban don't reject al qaeda and its works and the saudis will not be involved further. the pakistani is are -- by the taliban. the united nations might be a venue. tom pickering was here earlier and the taskforce might be a good way of going forward and it might be. the taliban have attacked a number of un offices and personal. they don't share the same view. the turkey office opening sound like a good thing.

one final point on a more optimistic note. the political context is very important. 70% of afghans are in favor of negotiations. that goes up to 94% in canada are. > thank you for coming today on short notice. if you work with steve you learned to take a breath and work out. i appreciate everyone coming in. being the tenth of ten panelists use end up constantly changing your notes to keep up with everyone and it has been a great morning so far. to respond to peter's points.

the issue of gdp and how much we a spending it is true in terms of how much we spend on the military but if you look over all that government spending this is an issue of priority for us. we ask spending so much more on everything -- on the military than anything else. the washington post had that comment that the u.s. government is turning into an insurance company with an army. the question of not necessarily apples to apples but a general question of what are our priorities. if we are willing to spend, afghan security forces. and across the united states, question of priorities. peter's relationship with the taliban which tends to be the issue on capitol hill when it comes to doing something in

afghanistan. it is pretty nebulous. who brought osama bin laden to afghanistan? abdul was the god hamid karzai wondered as speaker of the parliament. and the entire insurgency and al qaeda is not the case. the taliban connected with al qaeda, and where we are right now is in a stalemate. the metric indicators, cell phones and schools, the public opinion numbers and not doubt that. and iraq in 2004/2006, and 2005, and all over the place.

they sleep in hotels and different indicators for different parts of the country. additionally when i came home, same thing. the national strategy of victory in iraq. not the same wording. when you look at all of the key metrics and key data points. size and insurgency. and we lump them all together because he is not entirely appropriate at all in many cases.

and ten million people voted in this last election. you look at assassinations. and afghan army recruits. in very serious problem. american casualties. we had 21 kills this month. all the trends going the wrong way. i don't see evidence to support progress. the afghans have our recommendations. and here and on line, the century foundations report. the center for american progress, we have done reports

and it is out there. one thing to discuss, let's talk about that -- political efforts and reconciliation. it is a political solution to this conflict but we are not doing it. we actually have to change our policy. when i was there and received the operation order there was nothing instructing us to do political -- speak to the insurgency, find out why these people who were not supporting the insurgency were doing it this year. until we do those kinds of things we won't have any success at negotiations and negotiations have to occur at the local level. it needs to occur at regional and national levels as well. ultimately some type of international settlement with

regards to have ken and guaranteed neutrality. the other aspect is we need to push for reforms. if we look at afghan in 2001 and intervene and take one side out of tower and put one in power and impose a political system that reinforced victory from one side we have to mend that. in afghanistan there are not just two sides, it is very difficult. extremely complex. if you look at the process we have with the franchises many elements of afghan society and pushing insurgency just in many ways our policies in iraq by marginalizing and disenfranchising the sunnis we realize what we have been doing is giving the afghans two choices and they are both bad choices. you can either support the

taliban or you can support the hamid karzai government made of your traditional rivals that is corrupt labor and the predatory and a legitimate. they're both very bad choices. so until we have a policy that recognizess that right now we are acting belligerent in the conflict and participating in the conflict and taking one side. whether the conflict is not ethnic or regional or economic, we are propping up and making the atfields rich at the expense of the mcculloughs, we need to be more in the role of an arbitrator or mediator. this will continue to be a stalemate because when you meet with the real posture supporting the taliban they look at you and talk to you and have been fighting for 30 years. we are tired but we're not going to surrender. who are they standing with?

you are standing with the communists and the south out standing with a posture with intelligence officer who had been the afghan intelligence service. standing up with these people's traditional rivals saying this is your government so until we recognize what we're doing and will we are playing in the conflict and seek to amend that process to get a mediator we won't see that negotiations that lead to stability in afghanistan and pakistan. i appreciate everyone's time. thank you for coming. i look forward to the conversation. [applause] >> thank you so much. in a lot of ways you crystallized that we can be having because one of the things i would like to throw back at our panelists is what you left

us with which is is there a consensus on this group that a policy change is what we are talking about on the part of the united states? in order to get to a state of political settlement or political negotiations, are we actually talking about reopening the washington policy debate? i want to come to you on that. you have a point of view on counterinsurgency. is that stopping us from political negotiations? >> here we go. i would say we are moving through a period of change in policy. the president has defined it as such that july 2011 start the transition. define what transition actually means in very clear metric. there is a goal.

international conference last fall. hanover security responsibilities to afghans by 2014. between that goal and where we are right now a whole range of other things actually are ill-defined by people inside the government who don't know how to define key metrics on the security governance and economic development front. thus the need for a report from the administration. we need the change. there is an impulse recognize on the inside. there is change. on counterinsurgency there is a view that we are not doing counterinsurgency if you look at it from its text books for a of application and nor could we do it in a country like afghanistan. we don't have the levels that are required of doing that.

and population protection, the people are safe. 2010 by the afghan people, compared to all the other years we have been here. the vast majority of those are at the head of the insurgency. part of a problem, i would close, sustainability in transition and what we leave behind. it remains unanswered by what was identified by the get go at the start of the obama administration. week governance and corruption in afghan partners. those things apply to me that the history of the crystal surge and was decided, it depends on how things end up. if you knew those were unique pillar is why commit the resources to build to clear areas that president obama said don't clear areas you can't hold

and can't transition, we have done that. counterinsurgency would like you to say these gains, we don't want to lose those gains over the last year-and-a-half. when we step to the strategic level, you lose sight of what we are doing. the have greater clarity of purpose of what we are trying to get done beyond this defeat of al qaeda and afghanistan. >> are we just talking about talking at this point? do we need a whole new washington process to have a serious political conversation. >> contrary to brian, the administration's intentions are clear, a clearer strategy which

should be more indicative. the administration has set out the broad objective we talked about which is a symptom of one. as a sanctuary, and terrorists. we scale back american combat forces with full combat responsibility over to the afghans by 2014. to stay beyond that that as well as civilian capacity to provide non-combat assistance to afghan forces. and secretary clinton on february 18th at the asian society. it has no preconditions for that negotiation. objectives having the taliban cut its ties with al qaeda accept a constitution and laid

down their arms with objectives in the negotiation. all of these things are easier to say it and carry out. it is particularly contemplated and a multilateral setting. as accessible as afghanistan. there's no lack of clarity in what the administration hopes to achieve and the instruments it dedicated to achieving that. [talking over each other] >> it demonstrates the problem with how we think about strategy. you can have a clear strategy which has ways and means and tactics that have flexibility built into them that demand more of others. we talked about libya in the first panel. this is also what the obama administration is trying to do. they have a clearly articulated goal. i don't agree with it but there is flexibility in the strategy

that demands more of others and we don't have that at this point. i would disagree. if we are focusing to defeat al qaeda we have not answered the question my boss, richard holbrooke, two summers ago, what does this mean in terms of what we need to leave behind? with our stated end objective? if we look at what is public, is still unclear, what is the cost of completion and we are at a loss in pakistan. >> i want you to weigh in on negotiations. you said the allies we have been fighting within afghanistan are as bad or worse than the taliban. did you believe arguments have been made here is that there is no real partner for the u. s in a meaningful negotiated settlement. where do you come down on this? >> with all the background i

heard about one in three words of what was said in the last week 10 minutes. >> tell us quickly about your views on whether it is possible to negotiate with the taliban? >> for him to negotiate with the taliban? >> who did you have in mind? >> everyone is negotiating with the taliban. this isn't new. there have been discussions with different elements of the taliban ever since the latter days of 2001 and earlier days of 2002. is absolutely possible because virtually everyone is doing it. pakistan is doing a. hamid karzai is doing it. so i don't think the issue of negotiation is the issue. i think in the terms of the negotiation, what are the expectation that how responsible they are and the symmetry of

those expectations. it really is a question of what is desired from this? i am sure all of you know that -- what some of the erstwhile folks are trying to do. they were rapidly trying to undermine that. trying to put into place actors on behalf of pakistan's interest. the problem is there's a lot of negotiation going on but it is happening in a way that is utility maximizing for those actors and there's good reason for that. pakistan has a set -- to stick set of equities because of geography and the kinds of things we would be interested in, maximum positions. i hate to say this but i am frustrated with gender and human-rights issues. when no one has any rights i don't how to talk about

protecting baseline women's rights. i say that as a full of the later. i am frustrated with this tenor of the discussion. >> it is not a question of whether or not some kind of negotiations are moving forward. the issue is what the base of the discussions that end statements, this is where all of afghanistan's parts are neighbors like the hyena jumping on the afghanistan carcass. that is where the issues lie. >> that is an important point. i want to get time for questions. we have a full house today. we have a microphone in the back. stand up and identify yourself and keep it short so we have as many as possible here.

>> in 1992 the advent of the taliban. the international community washed its hands of afghanistan and the united states and started enforcing the present amendment on pakistan. i am wondering how much guilt is playing into the u.s. determination to get it right as peter alluded to in afghanistan and pakistan and how much pakistan's residual mistrust of the united states is also playing in and how much does this affect the picture that is going on now. is this still hanging on after all these years? >> can i take this issue? pas this brings out the issue, absolutely not conversion with this history.

we first sanctioned pakistan for proliferation concerns in april of 1979. long before december of 1979. they were based on the 1985 presser amendment. the amendment was passed not to punish pakistan. it was negotiated with pakistan's ministry of foreign affairs to allow to arm them when they continued to proliferate. pakistan fully understood what the amendment was about. it was a gentleman's agreement while you proliferate until we no longer need to arm you. this has become an article of fact. was used to beat the united states up and create this narrative that we are an unreliable partner. they had from april of 1979 to

the time we will decide to appreciate what the policy was about. this is not the basis of the discord. we will enter into the partnership under the umbrella of a specific purpose. signing up with the u.s. our own purposes, that is the problem. it was true today. to pursue their own interests in india. and for americans to figure out, we are not playing the same game and that is where we are.

it has nothing to do with a huge canard. >> anyone have a different view on that? here we go. >> one of the reasons why the u.s. politics establishment is incapable of comprehending what is going on is methodological. it is completely meaningless. people in that part of the world will rarely tell you, a complex range of calculation that prevents them, and -- >> neighboring pakistan, consistently that pakistan had one of those countries in the

world. it is less illegal. and 60% of afghanistan which is an astonishing number. typically a favorable view of the united states. broadly accurate. >> it track almost perfectly the election results. it is a question whether one is prepared to accept anecdotes' as the only basis for forming one's opinion or whether one is going to go to something more systematic. the polling is not the product of a single pole.

similar opinion trends. a margin of error. it is probably true that sentiment is going in that direction. the totals might be slightly off and is going down. >> i don't disagree on public opinion numbers. 53% support the american presence. 30% are violently opposed. that is what we have to understand. there's another side to the conflict. i agree with you in terms of how we conduct foreign policy. as an anecdote a friend of mine fromhe announcement of best position at the state department in afghanistan and requirements for economics, statistics, nothing with language or culture or religion or history. we have an overreliance on quantitative.

>> we have more questions in the back? >> i feel the senate or watching a performance of hamlet without hamlet to and extend because general david petraeus has been telling the public and congress that we have made progress in reducing the capability of the taliban, some significant progress in reducing their moral and in reducing their acceptance by the afghan people. that has been bolstered by some of the people the pentagon makes available to the new york times. the national intelligence estimate last fall, the white house and david petraeus tried to burn contradicted david petraeus on each of those points and said we haven't made a significant dent in the order of

battle or more route and motivation generally tour the afghan people. i am wondering why the think tanks and other pundits have not mention that in the last few weeks or months when we had current information about progress. to and extends said that taliban have suffered defeat as they did on a very focused bowl and sending troops to the north to expand the breadth of their involvement while waiting out the winter. if the argument is made that the data was cut off around august or september, why they are not demanding an update before the july decision which could be done fairly quickly because the framework of metrics has been laid out and the reporting since then has been used in current

intelligence. >> we will leave it to the panel to decide who is hamlet in this scenario. quickly on the n i e? >> it takes a long time to do. i would point to an independent source that is not on this panel has to do with u.s. military which is an ngo based in last regarding canada or light bulbs. that is a longtime critic of western policy in afghanistan. surveys in the fall of this year found particularly -- respondents were saying the security is better and i would point to the bbc which found in polling of the security situation, the 14% level to 67% in the last year or so. there is independent data for

these assessments. >> the more things change the more they stay the same. when you talk about and i es it takes me back to fall of 2007. and iraq, portrayed the violence in a certain way and a few weeks later general david petraeus portrayed it a different way. there are challenges in gathering and interpreting the data but point number two, clear security progress in certain parts of afghanistan. we have the finest military the world has ever known. you put in some places will have an impact. the question is is that impact sustainable? have we cleared territory that we simply can't handover to afghan partners? this is the key point the president of the united states stressed in internal meetings and remains unanswered has a sustainability question to focus

on. >> i don't think general david petraeus is suggesting we are winning just no longer losing. >> question here. >> and have to hammer you a little. i represent a bipartisan coalition of veterans rethinking afghanistan. i am perplexed. you said security is getting better. there is 100% turnover last quarter. 60% turnover in alma. army is comprised of a car she majority, not cashed in. is it getting better because we are there or because afghans are supporting hamid karzai? what is the connection of this connection? >> is security getting better? >> data suggest security is not

getting better generally. security situation -- i was over there in september of 2009 and the main problem was boredom. there has been a big fight. most is pretty secure. another independent analysis, the dean of afghan corresponds to reporting living in afghanistan since the early 90s. when she goes into other areas and says security happens and the taliban was dealt a defeat. this is not a handout from lights out. this is really happening. >> do you want to address it? christine is going to leave. we want to fanged her for her participation. [applause]

>> we are in a little delay. we are on the cutting edge of the digital frontier. time for a couple more questions in the back. >> i know about estimates having chaired them for many years. the first was the one that burt referred to about afghanistan. the second was and pakistan. the one in afghanistan concluded we don't have a prayer to win this war to prevail whatever is that means without full participation and cooperation of pakistani sunny of their son of a line. the one that afghanistan said there's a snowball's chance in hell that we can get the pakistani to cooperate because they don't see the world the same way we do. it is important to know that

there's a difference between 16 intelligence agencies in this city and something general david petraeus serves up because having been through the vietnam debacle general westmoreland told us there are only 2,299,000 b.c. and arms. we said there were 600,000. at canes two months later atetme were proven right. >> general david petraeus was right and the intelligence community wrong in their assessment where trends were going in iraq. i quite agree with your concluding comment. >> following up in 2007 and the difference between then and now -- we are taking the attack

today by spring of 2007 we were down to six or seven packs a day. it was dramatic and very real. i am not saying there won't be an awakening but what i am saying is we have not seen any indication to show as insurgency is fracturing or splitting in any way that will matter on a strategic level. >> between iraq and afghanistan, the interesting dynamic was elements of the insurgency were coopted in to the formal political process. there was an incentive that pushed them including citigroup. this is an oversimplified version. fayette cities were out of the political process and by 2009 they were in. i don't see that dynamic happening in afghanistan because it is not apples and oranges. it is apples and bicycles between two countries and the nature of the insurgency on afghanistan in terms of

insurgency is more fractured. i don't see this process was hope for at the start of last year. reconciliation or reintegration pushing into a formal process because the formal process is seen as corrupt and broken and not achieving the interests of ordinary afghans themselves. that problem was identified. the presidential election is -- [talking over each other] >> the height of the iraq war, in afghanistan. to be killed in iraq and afghanistan waiting for the population iraq was an industrial strength of war. the problem is so much more in afghanistan. that is not to say if only this could be iraq. thank god it isn't iraq. the problem is much smaller and the problem was more intense and foreseeable that people would make accommodations necessary so if there really was a civil war going on that gets people's

attention. that happened in iraq. the sunnis realize we are on the wrong end of potential extermination. that changed their views. we are not in that situation in afghanistan. we should be grateful. >> with comparison to iraq and afghanistan, very similar. in our minds that it was very similar. >> an analogy we keep coming back to. not sure if it is good or not but we are coming these conversations. another question, yes? >> i am a senior first lieutenant with the army national guard. it has been great being exposed to this great stuff. it will take some time for me to turn all the information into an actionable, trainable material.

in my organization might judgment is i am responsible for turning training our soldiers within maryland to go overseas and work in iraq and afghanistan. some of those who work with coalition forces as well as afghanistan military and army police and everything like that. the question is would anybody from the panel, as far as short, easy, and information, suggestions that i can pass along to the lieutenant-colonel i will train into going into afghanistan and elsewhere? >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your service. people say that a lot about what you do is incredible. all our volunteer forces. the clear and understand what your force is capable of doing. this is my criticism of the practicality of implementing counterinsurgency. we demand a lot of our 20-year-olds. at one moment we want them to be

fierce warriors willing to kill, able to kill and we need that to protect america. then we ask them to flip a switch and the social workers and do a range of things. it is general advice but understand translating that which is in manuals and sounds good to certain people who study the issue is hard to do and we have all 4 out fliers like the pulte incident where we see things have gone wrong. it is hard to marshal these forces. i admire people who are doing this. i was speaking to a former general who had significant experience in iraq and knows afghanistan very well. at that point we ask so much of these young men and women and we don't equip them with the tools we expect them to have in

implementing sophisticated campaign. as the recent doctor wrote about specific instructions that is important to do. you need to have great clarity and strategic level coming down to you and i agree with ambassador dobbins that it has gotten better but we don't have a great moment of clarity. >> as someone giving it to the receiving end. >> you don't train just to get the target. you add range and depth and complexity to throw some smoke and movement. same thing when you are training for political engagements. you can't go in against will players with the same script you have been using for three years. helping a friend of mine in germany from long island if you're going to occupy long island we expect the nassau county commission to have a very simple political background. something that goes back decades and is very complex. it can't just be political training against the seven meter

target. i can put you in touch with folks who can help you out. >> i want to thank our panelists. we have not necessarily come to a conclusion but serviced them all. thank you for your questions. [applause] >> thank you for joining us. we are not going to take a break. we are not taking a break. please move into the hallway. we are going to move into our next session. if i could encourage folks. >> a couple of live events to tell you about. the brookings institution looks at how biomedical research may impact health costs. participants include speaker of the house newt gingrich here on c-span2 and 9:00 eastern.

at 10:00 on c-span a forum unsustainable and equitable economic growth. hosted by the center for american progress. >> here are the programs featured on c-span this holiday weekend. three secretaries of state talk about american diplomacy. a revisit of the star versus clinton case with lawyers who participated including a lawyer for monica lynn wednesday. president ford's son speaks about public officials on ethical issues and jenna bullish on her memories of the white house during the presidency of grandfather and father and former nbc news anchor tom brokaw and vice president joe biden on senator and presidential candidate bob dole. on monday political strategist on same-sex marriage in america. for complete list of this weekend's programs and times the online at c-span.org. >> this weekend on booktv in a

covered a fair, paul and julia child's career during world war ii. afterwards from inventing george washington, a fresh look at the legends of america's first president and debunks several myths, son centuries-old. and the americanization of hawaii beginning with the arrival of missionaries in 1820. the complete schedule at booktv.org and get our scheduled e-mail. sign up for booktv altered. now look at the future of electric vehicles from the annual conference of the electric drive transportation association. speakers include david owens of the edison electric institute and jonathan browning, presidency of volkswagen. this is half an hour. >> it is a pleasure to have this unique opportunity to be a

keynote speaker today. has been an outstanding conference. many of you are probably saying another speech? my goal today is to give you a snapshot of the commitment of the electric industry to electric vehicles. and to give you a snapshot of the partnership, the significant partner should we are engaged in day. you heard a lot of encouraging words over the last several days about transportation. it is clear in my mind that we are primed and ready for the american public to aggressively embraced electric vehicles. you may ask me why? i just look at the overall price of gasoline today. i filled up my car this morning and couldn't believe the price. i had to use premium gasoline at

$4.25 a gallon. i know that there are many consumers who are very concerned about the environment. in my view consumers who pay more attention today than at any other time about electric vehicles, i don't think there has ever been a critical time where we see that continued collaboration between government and industry is occurring very significantly. i also recognize there is a lot of work that lies ahead for as. we have a great opportunity. thomas edison once said opportunity is missed by most people because it overhauled and looks like work. i know everyone here today seize the opportunity and is committed to the hard work that we have in

the future. i want to thank some true visionaries. some of you have spoken at this conference. who are making in my view electric transportation in real reality. brian just introduced me and brian and his team at epa are showing tremendous leadership and enthusiasm and the imagination of electric transportation. so thank you for your tremendous leadership. i extend also my appreciation to the great team you have working with you. you also heard earlier about our other visionaries and that is ted kramer. his role at it is international, he is the ceo and the co-chair of edta. he embodies the efforts of the electric industry and our strong commitment to prepare the infrastructure and to be a

partner with so many of you who will make electric transportation a reality. we certainly do o ted kramer a significant amount of debt and gratitude. i would also like to thank president obama and the administration. unfortunately the president couldn't be here today. that was a joke. and secretary shoe. in particular the commitment the administration of the future of electric transportation. the president's campaign was to commit to electric vehicle and modernize the overall electric structure. we call that the smart grid. i call it modernization.

a lot of that was brought about through the stimulus package. $5 million was put inside for electric transportation, research development and infrastructure deployment. that has added in my opinion a significant foundation for us to go forward. the president has a firm commitment. if you look at the dollars that were put aside, $2.4 billion to build plug in electric vehicle factories in california, delaware and tennessee. $2 billion of matching funds for battery and drivetrain and component factories. $400 million in matching funding for large-scale deployment of plug in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure through programs like clean cities which has been around for a while. a goal of saving three billion

gallons of petroleum, of gasoline and it is fairly successful. i am really hopeful that many of the discussions at this conference will be broadly shown to our cleans the partners. that sounds like a lot but it really isn't. in my view we can stop there. experience has taught us and we heard our award mention that emerging technologies sometimes people forget about. first generation hybrids, first generation cellphone, they require a continued dedication to ensure that those technologies will evolve beyond the early initial vision. to a tower and one more widespread sustainable growth is possible. that is how i feel about electric vehicles. speaking of this partnership, d

o e recognizes the sustained need for the investment in electric vehicles. earlier this week you heard secretary chew make an outstanding announcement outlining new efforts that the department of energy would have to accelerate deployment of electric vehicles including the creation of a $5 million funding opportunity where local governments and private opportunities can work together. we can't do this alone. we need local public policy officials have to look at these opportunities. we need to work with them to develop and submit projects that will prepare our communities for successful deployment and implementation of plug in electric vehicles. in addition to the national renewable energy lab announced its plan to parter wife google and other industry leaders to create a network of charging stations. ..

>> excuse me, national electric fuel task force to provide a forum for the public and the private sector to exchange information. to the collaboratively address the challenges of large-scale deployment of plug-in electric vehicles and to look at those, the infrastructure that's necessary to make this a reality in the future. i mentioned clean cities earlier. we're a partner in that.

i mentioned project at ready, we're a partner in that. and we're trying to create strategic alliances with others. we're supporting research, we're supporting economic development, and we're working very closely with our communities to educate them. i think education and training and outreach is very, very critical. and i understand that because it was mentioned earlier, i'm one of the key participants in promoting the smart grid. and one of the more difficult challenges that we have is nobody knows what it is. even i don't know what it is. and i work in this area extensively. so we have to educate our customers about the new technologies, about the viability of these technologies in terms of changing their lives. we also need to work with the organizations that develop standards. fta and icc they have the responsibility of developing

codes and standards on appliances and electric infrastructure to facilitate their safe and effective use of the charging infrastructure. that's not all that we're doing. we're focusing our efforts on grid readiness and customer education. both of which i believe are critical as we move beyond early adopters to more widespread acceptance of electric vehicles and electricity as a viable transportation fuel. we're working with automakers, dealers and others on early notification programs. so we know when with and where the vehicles -- so we know when and where the vehicles are coming to our territories. so our overall distribution infrastructure is ready. so our transformers are properly sized and so that our call centers are educated so that we

can communicate with our customers in realtime. we think that's create kale. -- critical. we believe all of this will help our members as they evaluate their systems, and they look at the impact on additional reliability need and the impact on low carrier improvement. in order to maintain the high level of reliability that our customers demand. when we look at our distribution system, we're also looking at our transformers that are close to their limits, and we're seeking to modernize that. so the bottom line is we're proactively upgrading our transform former zone areas where it's very clear that as we aggressively move into electric vehicles that our infrastructure is ready. we have that commitment. we also recognize that the customer has to have a positive

experience. and we're working hard to provide support and information for our customers investing in electric transportation. as i mentioned, the call center -- updating the call center is important. our call center people need to be trained so they have the electric drive vehicle knowledge when our customers ask them a question. and they need to understand the issues that will come before them as we begin to aggressively pursue electric vehicles. we're developing web sites to provide customers with the latest information and, also, education about electric vehicles. now, many of our companies are doing a little bit more. they're working with inspectors and code officials to help simplify and streamline the permitting process for charging station installation. all of which are needed to insure a quick, smooth,

worry-free customer experience. my point is, we are at a critical juncture. as we move to develop widespread acceptance of electric vehicles and electricity as a viable transportation fuel. focusing on the customer experience, providing the customer education as well as continued collaboration with all of you and cooperation among all the stakeholders including the doe and the etta who is our partner we'll go a long way, in my view, to insuring our joint success. now, you all know in the world of energy there are a lot of complex questions, some rather daunting challenges. usually we're hearing a lot of bad news about energy; rising energy prices, uncertain supplies, all the environmental risks that are associated with

different forms of power supply. in my view, electric transportation offers a real chance for us to address all of these issues in a way that meets the needs of our customers for safe, reliable and affordable clean transportation. you have my heart felt thanks to all of you for your hard work in be helping us to move where we are today. i think this has been, this is different than prior years. you heard others speak that, well, we've seen this before. no, we have not. i think we're at an important juncture, and i appreciate all of your hard work. and i'll just repeat, remember the words of thomas edison: look at all this hard work that we have before us, let's embrace it as an opportunity. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, david. many of you will know that 32 years ago, edta started out as a collaboration between the auto industry and the energy industry, so it's fitting that we have representatives from those two industries. i'm now pleased to introduce our next keynote speaker, jonathan browning, who's ceo of volkswagen group of america. he worked for ford from 1997-2001 first as executive director of marketing for ford escape and then as global marketing director of jaguar. former vp of european sales, service and marketing at gm, chairman of voxol, jonathan browning became gm's president of global sales and service

marketing in 2008. in june of 2010, jonathan browning assumed responsibility for global direction of volkswagen's group national sales company, and just a few months later became president and ceo of volkswagen group of america inc. and president for volkswagen of america, their america brand. so i'm pleased to welcome jonathan browning to the stage. he's just gotten back from the new york auto show, and he's going to share some thoughts from there as well. please welcome jonathan browning. [applause] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and i'm sure you have all had a very interesting conference and looking forward to adding a little bit to the deliberations that you've been participating over these last couple of days with. and as brian just said,

recently, last night returned from the new york show and seem to have spent three days talking about the new volkswagen beetle, and i'm going to try -- i promise you i will not mention that during these next few minutes. but if somebody wants to talk about it later, i might be tempted to. let me say, really, i'm pleased to have this opportunity to address this group, this organization that's very much been at the fore front of efforts to deliver, develop the car of the future for more than two decades now. as conference, i think, has demonstrated the car of the future, really, is here in the sense of delivering that future in the real marketplace. now, i know many of you have been strong advocates for hybrids and electric vehicles for really a very long time, and before many of those options became fashionable. well, clearly, the world has

caught up, and the automobile industry is reinventing the car. now, as many be -- as many of you know but perhaps not many drivers today know there's considerable irony in that our industry was, indeed, founded on what we now call alternative power trains. if you go back to 1900, the auto registration records of those days show that most cars at the time were powered by steam. electric cars were the second most popular choice, and more than a fourth of the cars sold at the turn of the last century were electric. and, indeed, here in the u.s. there were at least a dozen electric manufacturers alone. now, as many of you will know two developments in the early 1900s really made the internal combustion engine the king of the road. one was the mass production of the popular model t which stimulated consumer demand for

the gas-powered vehicles. the other big breakthrough was the introduction of electric starters which eliminated the need for that hand cranking and which also eliminated the risk of a broken arm every time you wanted to drive your car. now, as an aside, i can't help given my company background just note that the first practical internal combustion engine was invented in germany. tradition of forward-looking german automotive engineering that does continue until today. now, the internal combustion engine has really many advantages, especially when oil was cheap and plentiful, gas and diesel-powered cars made mobility accessible not just for the rich, but also those of more moderate incomes as well. and that mobility did truly open new doors, offered new freedoms and enriched people's lives.

and it provided more options in the way we live, work and play. and today's versions of those internal combustion engines are remarkably efficient and clean. but we know those advantages come at a cost. and oil is no longer cheap, and while it may be plentiful depending on how you define that, we, i think, all understand it's a finite resource. so if you listen to the international energy agency, they recently concluded that production of conventional crude oil peaked at around 700 million barrels in the 2006, and if that's correct, means that it'll clearly become harder to meet the growing demand for oil as every year passes. and that demand will skyrocket over the next several years as particularly millions of people many china, india and other developing nations acquire the

financial means to enter the car market. just a couple of numbers to reinforce that. over 30 years ago there were only about a million cars in total in all of china. according to their government estimates, by 2020 that number will be 200 million cars. so, clearly, something has to change. and to be sure, it's a challenge. but with every challenge are opportunities, and that's why the automotive industry is in a global race to achieve sustainable mobility. and volkswagen, i believe, is well positioned to take e-mobility to mass production. in the much the same way that ford shifted attitudes about the internal combustion engine with the model t, volkswagen plans to stimulate global demand for electric cars. now, our strategy is ambitious,

but it's grounded in one essential fact, and that is that we understand the internal combustion engine is not going to disappear overnight. while there's no question that many consumers want an alternative to gas and diesel, they do not want to sacrifice quality, value, style, performance or reliability. they do not want new restrictions on freedom of movement. so electric cars will not sell in large numbers unless they're fully tested, suitable for everyday use and affordable. now, the most optimistic estimates suggest electric vehicles will account for around 10% of the global market by 2020. and even if that is true -- and some experts doubt it -- it means 90% of the cars on the road at the start of the next decade will still need gas or

diesel fuel. but let me emphasize that reality does not mean accepting the status quo. and at volkswagen we're following a multitrack approach with systematically improving the internal combustion engine as we expand our production of hybrids and electric vehicles. now, our tdi clean diesel technology which increases fuel forget si by 20-40% is setting new mileage standards with vehicles like the tdi-powered vehicles, the jetta and audi that earned the green car of the year award and the l.a. show honors for two years in a row. and the tdi version of the all-new passat will get 43 miles per gallon on the highway. that's better than almost any car on the road, and that

includes nearly every hybrid. and the efficiency improvements from tdi technology are making a measurable difference. over the past five years, the volkswagen group has reduced it global fleet co2 emissions by about 15% to 144 grams per kilometer and 20 model variants emit less than 100 grams of co2 per kilometer. we believe we'll soon be able to increase engine efficiency by another 15% or more. but again, that's not enough. and can while we're squeezing -- and while we're squeezing every drop of efficiency out of the internal combustion engine, we're also accelerating the development of hybrid technology and e-mobility. we're having the hybrid market, have entered the hybrid market on a large scale. and we started in the u.s. this year with a hybrid with version of the tour regular, our premium

suv. next year we introduce the hybrid version of the jetta and hybrid withs for passat and gulf are on their way. those volume models will help take the hybrid model out of its knewish status. and we're also pursuing revolutionary hybrid options. a few years ago we set out to develop what we called a one-liter car, a vehicle that could travel 100 kilometers on a single liter of fuel. that's equivalent to 235 miles per gallon. now, we've achieved that goal by creating the world's most efficient car, the volkswagen xl1. and it made its debut at the qatar auto show earlier this year. it proves that it is possible to develop an ultra fuel-efficient car that is also practical for daily use. now, this remarkable two-seat

hybrid can be charged from a conventional household outlet while relying on fuel, the xl1 emits just 24 grams of co2 per kilometer. but we're not stopping there. we are also investing very heavily in zero e emissions electric vehicles. as our chairman, martin, likes to say in the future the heart of our brand will also beat with electricity. we're pursuing all known electric traction concepts. we're also working with high-tech partners to expand expertise in highly complex cell battery technology with the goal of producing battery systems and electric motors within the volkswagen group. our commitment is global and cuts across all of our brands. our goal is not necessarily to be the first to market, but to be the best.

now, our headquarters in germany , we are investing there more than $130 million in a new e-mobility campus that will put our e-mobility expertise literally at the heard of the volkswagen research and development activities. and that center will house more than 1100 automotive specialists and staff. our audi brand has a new e-mobility research center with more than 800 employees. and here in the u.s. we've invested in an electronics research laboratory in california, and we'll actually host a grand opening of a new, larger facility for the erl just next week. plus there are additional group research facilities in china and japan. and we're currently testing electric vehicles in real-world conditions in europe, north america and china. now, we plan to bring our first

electric car and electric gulf to the u.s. market in two years' time, and we'll steadily and systematically introduce other electric models as the volkswagen group moves towards its goal of achieving 3% of our total global sales as electric vehicles by 2018. coming a little closer to home, starting tomorrow visitor to the new york auto show will have a chance to see what we call the bully, the e-bully. bully was the local nickname for the microbus in germany, in case you wonder where that phrase comes from. now, that is clearly an updated version of a classic vehicle. and, of course, volkswagen is not the only car company that's investing heavily in electric vehicles. but our scale and our global

reach give us the ability to have a major impact on the future success of the electric car market. our worldwide deliveries last year exceeded seven million vehicles for the first time, and we are market leaders in europe, china and brazil. now, admittedly in the u.s. we're not yet where we want to be, but we're making some very significant steps. we've invested over $4 billion in our u.s. growth strategy, and that'll significantly increase our market presence here. the essence of our strategy is to make quality german engineering accessible to more people in cars that are more closely aligned with local customer needs. so, for example, the all-new passat that i mentioned earlier was designed and developed in germany, yet it was -- it will be built here in the u.s. at our

new state-of-the-art plant in chattanooga, tennessee. furthermore, we're in the process of maximizing the benefits of our global reach by adopting a new modular tool kit strategy that cuts the cost and complexity of production across our brands and operations. these modular tool kits will bring together processes that give us the flexibility to introduce a wide variety of power trains and body styles at much reduced cost. now, all of these factors; technological expertise, our global market reach and innovative manufacturing and engineering processes really put the group in a position to have that strong impact on e-mobility that we foresee. in total, i think this is clearly an exciting time for the global auto industry. the race to develop the best

electric cars is clearly on, and we certainly welcome that competition. i think the edta here is playing a very important role in that process, and we applaud your efforts to reduce market hurdles, to educate stakeholders, the standardize regulatory policies and to accelerate technology break throughs. fierce competition in the marketplace, smart government policies will all help us stand the full potential of e-mobility and other technologies that lead us to sustainable mobility. the future, as i said earlier, is very much here, and we all have to seize that. we can move steadily towards sustainable mobility without sacrificing quality, value, style, performance, reliability, all the fun of driving. the results, i believe, will clearly benefit our industry,

benefit our customers and the environment at large. i thank you very much for your attention. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, jonathan. i think that's a great way for us to be coming to a close here with fierce competition. we're going to need fierce competition and a lot of collaboration and, of course, we've had all the players here at the conference that are doing all of that. you know, our president has put two goals in front of us now. we've got the goal of a million plug-in vehicles by 2015 which is going to be a real challenge, and then we've got the goal that he recently announced of reducing our imported oil by a third by the end of the decade. so we have our work cut out for

us, and i think we have the right strategies coming together to actually make that happen even beyond electricity. there's two groups that i want to thank as we're coming to a close here. first, there is -- we have a wonderful committee that comes together that helps us put this event together every year. we had an enormous amount of help this year in particular or on the program, and i've gotten rave reviews on the program. that's largely your duty, your efforts and your collaboration in coming together and saying what is it that we really need to be talking about right now. so i want to, i want to have a round of applause for our conference committee, please, if you would. [applause] and i've been remiss in not acknowledging so far, so i wanted to do so now that our leader of that committee, rick casper, who has been, who's been in that role since 2005, was not able to join us because of

personal matters that came up at the last minute. but we were going to honor him at this stage in the event, and we will get him this award. but, you know, those of you who know rick casper, the president and chief operating officer of global electric motor cars, know that he has a very unusual sense of humor. i think born of the fact that he lives in fargo can, north dakota, and he's frequently challenging us to move to the next level at this conference and threatening us with meetings in january in fargo. so we have, we have given him -- we're going to be presenting him with this award at our next public event. it says: rick casper, in recognition of his leadership, good fargo humor and red river sandbagging skills, chairman of the edta conference committee. so for those of you who done know, you know, the 100-year red river flooding has now become an annual event, so rick's become very proficient at organizing

his community to fill sandbags. so we'll be, we'll be doing that with him. secondly, i'd like to thank my staff. some of them are in the room. you know, they say that really good, really good service is invisible, and some of them have been invisible to you. i haven't been invisible, unfortunately, for some time now. but many of them have been working very, very long hours to make certain that this event comes together and were out of the way so that you can network with one another and get the maximum from your time together. so i'd like to ask for a round of applause for the edta staff. [applause] and then, finally, our next event next year for those of you who have been working with edta for a long time, you know that every third or fourth year or so the electric vehicle symposium

which has been going on since the late '60s comes around, and we have the good fortune to host that when it's in knot -- north america. so next year instead of this particular event, we will be in downtown los angeles hosting the world for the electric vehicle symposium. the last event, evs 25 was in china, and it was a very exciting event. we expect this to be an absolute blockbuster event, even larger than our 2007evs s 23 event in anaheim. so i want to close with an invitation to you to join us in los angeles downtown in the convention center may 6-9 for evs 26. thank you very much for coming, please, travel home safely. [applause] [inaudible conversations]