conglomeration of actors in pakistan al qaeda, ttp and l.e.t. they do not need to take the lead role in order for capability to be used against the u.s. homeland or american interests abroad. furthermore, individuals or factions within l.e.t. can utilize domestic infrastructure as well as transnational capabilities to pursue operations without leadership consent. because members of the l.e.t. do not cut ties with the group or neighboring elements within it, but it also comes from the last card alumni network. because l.e.t. is implicit racial dynamics, it's worth considering how one step might be shipping for every. the kashmir conflict where it remains forbidden would be difficult for l.e.t. to regenerate insurgency, its members continue to integrate further into the afghan insurgency but unlike the taliban, doesn't have a major constituent be in afghanistan.

the death could create space for a political solution in its outcome of l.e.t. may find it up and act evoked in front for the first time in two decades. this will impact behavior and group cohesion and may lead some to seek other opportunities, particularly terrorist attacks against india, pakistan or the u.s. however, might provide others to demobilize. if i may, a few brief recommendations that offers this event to l.e.t. that being said, fully dismantling the group must be a gradual process in order to avoid a backlash and will require a paradigm shift is in the army and the isi and one in india-pakistan relations. first, actions necessary for a global take donatelli t. continue to pursue counterterrorism cooperation for support to india and bangladesh and increase with nepal, sri lanka were l.e.t. networks are expanding. they must press for intelligence

vis-à-vis allies in the polls. second, with regard to pakistan specifically. in the near-term, continue to signal severe repercussions that would result for l.e.t. or elements within it be involved in an attack on american interests and continue to press pakistan for intelligence regarding international networks and begin taking steps to degrade training apparatus. toward the medium term, increase focus on building pakistan's counterterrorism capacity via civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies. and finally, prepare for the long-term, push for designing a deradicalization, demobilization program and ask for the cost, benefit and feasibility of doing so by working with a third-party such as saudi arabia. i understand recommendations do not offer gratification get as the world witnessed sunday night persistence in preparation to pay off.

thank you for inviting me to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. tankel. i neglected to say you are finishing your boat. i need to give you a plug for streaming the world stage of lashkar-e-taiba, so a very learned presence here today may take one more bit of housekeeping. i ask unanimous consent that mr. marino from pennsylvania be allowed to set in advance for the hearing. without objection. thank you, mr. marino. for a final testimony, the witnesses shuja nawaz, direct or of south asia center at the atlantic council of the united states, a native of pakistan, mr. nawaz provided a multitude of forms and is the author of the 2008 book of sorts, and the

wars within. you are now recognized to summarize your testimony for five minutes. [inaudible] >> canasta jordache >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member by year, i am honored to speak before you on this concern to the united states, pakistan and need i say the rest of the world. i shall take a macro approach the situation in pakistan and especially to the relationship with the united states. as steve tankel has already talked of the l.e.t., not going to dwell at length on that particular organization or any other individual organizations. but i should recognize that pakistan today is a magnet and a haven for terrorists around the globe. it has an internal conflict,

with a nice society and sagging economy and an educational system that is not preparing it to you adequately for the 21st century. the killing of osama bin laden will not bolster these underlying conditions that spawn terrorism, but it is an inflection point that could help us change the relationship with pakistan perhaps for the better. as the chairman said, we must make this relationship work. i believe the issues of militancy and terrorism has to be examined both from a national and regional perspective. money can't buy you love. so throwing money at the problem is not a real solution as are nearly $1 trillion in iraq and afghanistan have driven already. just as we do, partners around the world are looking for respect, consistency and honest

he and relationships. the united states needs to think long term and not even in the short-term with those longer-term objectives in mind. in supporting autocratic military regime in the past, we ignore the needs of the people of pakistan and lead to the disenfranchisement by military elite. both the soviet and after we exited the scene, pakistan took on a deeper regional role, focusing on historical rival in india and preventing uprising across the eastern border in kashmir. these chickens came home to roost in later years as beyond warriors of this jihad outgrow controllers and widen the scope of their activities beyond kashmir to india proper and now perhaps to europe and north america appeared meanwhile, sudden appearance of globe shaking technologies and ability to raise funds across the globe and train people allowed these

groups to attract faithful warriors from the homelands of the west. the military regime that we supported in the 1980s left a legacy of the education systems are integrated learning institutions, stunted administrative machinery and relied on political engineering for manipulation to manage the policy to its liking. today we face a huge challenge inside pakistan. a democratic timebomb is ticking with the median age of about 20 years, roughly 60 million use are a population of 180 million between 16 and 25 and are largely illiterate and unemployed. they live in a state that has spawned unbridled to craddick behavior among its leaders. while attention has been focused on the u.s.-pakistan relationship, the greatest influence on the rise of terrorism in pakistan is the lack of governance.

the country faces an economic crisis due in part to global shots, but to a larger extent the ineptitude of reforms. the external shocks to the economy and policy hope create the perfect backdrop to the violent culture of terrorism in pakistan. countering the insurgency that inhabit pakistan today is the huge task for which pakistan has largely relied on military force. in the past, the army has changed his training regiment to focus on counterinsurgency, but still doesn't have relationship between counterinsurgency and counterterrorism in mind as the streaking couches explained, that is the weakness of the system inside pakistan and also needs many tools, helicopters for mobility and attacking highly mobile modern terrain.

most of all, it will make the political will to undertake these efforts, particularly inside the print job will be to. the united states much more needs to be done. mr. chairman, ranking members, members of the committee, the u.s. can and should play a role in advising and assisting pakistan in order to prevent the rise of terrorism that could attack the homeland. but i believe it's in pakistan's own interest to undertake the difficult policy changes that would allow it to focus on all terrorist groups operating inside its borders. we must insist on an honest dialogue and reward honesty with honesty. we must follow a two-pronged policy hope and change the social economic and helping pakistan set up a broad-based counterinsurgency operation.

they invested signature infrastructure projects will become a lasting reminder of u.s. assistance. the largest single potential in my view for improving pakistan's security and economy is the normalization within india, a person that's now beginning to show signs of revival. to give you an idea, increase trade between these two countries rising from about 2 billion here to between 40 and 100 linear would radically alter the lives of people on both sides of the border. it will be a more confident and secure pakistan and i might be a stable and secure pakistan's can help create a stable south asia and the stable united states. thank you. >> thank you, mr. nawaz. i want to thank each of the members for your testimony. we are facing very difficult

circumstances and that we have got some hearings, not just hearings, but we've got to attend a classified briefing at 3:00 p.m., which is now untold going to be followed by a series of those. and so in recognition of what that significant delay would mean an out of respect for time as well, i'm a lot like going to limit the questioning to myself and the ranking member for someone to take questions now and perhaps at some point in time if we have the agreement of the committee, we can follow up again on this very, very important topic with you as panelists because they think there is significant questioning that can be done. i thank you for your preparation and i'm hoping we can do more to follow up on it. allow me for a moment to begin a

few limited questions at this point in time. when we start with you, mr. kagan. he made a comment about not dealing with the talent and. am i correct in that assessment? is that something you said? >> this is not the moment to pursue a negotiated settlement for the taliban in my opinion. >> most of the analyses i've read recently seem to use just that they be a critical mass that to our ability for the united states to unwind its current military commitment to the region. it may be including the idea of finding some political solution of television and is your belief that would be an unwise strategy? >> i will keep my answers short, but it in fact very long. first of all, they're not all that many insurgents that were actually resolved by a negotiated settlement with the armed fighting wing of the insurgency. it's not historical model in an

import from the bosnia to kosovo model in forming this thinking, but those are not insurgencies. those are civil wars. so i'm not sure what the historical basis is for examples of the negotiation. in particular, what i would say now is we are changing the military situation on the ground in afghanistan dramatically this year. i believe we will begin to see changes in the political dynamic in afghanistan as well. we've just made progress -- symbolic progress if nothing else but the death of bin laden. one negotiates best at moments of strength we have not yet reached our position of greatest strength and success yet nor have the taliban which their greatest weakness. i think we have to be very, very alert to the danger of seizing a deal prematurely it serves our own domestic concerns and so

forth that will not in fact lead to stability. lastly, it's extremely important to understand the taliban, particularly for mullah omar branch does not represent afghanistan pashtuns. they do not represent the population feeling the centuries and see. they have capitalized on them. but making a deal with that leadership will not inevitably or even likely bring along with it those who are most agree to have been supporting conflict in afghanistan. i think the notion we can wrap this up with some agreement with mullah omar and some henchmen misunderstands the situation in the country at this point. >> thank you for your comments. i think quick question for you, mr. jones. he discussed the concept of our search for all so here he and the police at one point in time we may have been in pakistan to continue to be looking for him to simultaneously open to you

have for the collaboration appeared to be existing or at least to some extent the relationship that existed between l.e.t., haqqani network and some facets of pakistani leadership. now, this goes to one of the fundamental questions that we want to talk about so many various elements of what's going on in the threat, emanating from the region, but would dealing in the aftermath of the bin laden situation and we know the commitments that have been made from the pakistanis. but you identified in michio in which -- this those types of

arrests or killings have at the very least, whether there was not a high priority near al qaeda leaders in pakistan. those inches have to be viewed. i do not believe it's been a high priority. >> thank you. i reluctantly appreciate the size limit timeline and i know we would like to have extended the questioning throughout the

entire panel, but i have to conclude right now and go over to ranking member speier for her question. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. it is very troubling because on the one hand, correct me if i'm wrong, that our presence in pakistan must remain. is that true quakes does anyone disagree with? >> i don't know speaking for myself i don't know the particular relationship and structure but in some way with pakistan. >> the american people spend over a trillion dollars in the last year in iraq and afghanistan we spent close to $20 million in pakistan and we had to go in ourselves and i

agree with the chairman. there is this elephant in the room that comes down to all the money we spend, how can we develop a relationship with the pakistani government when in fact you have what i would call an isi that is at the very least. so i guess my question to you is, where do we go from here? money alone hasn't gotten us that travis. >> if i may, the beginning of trust has to be a close discussion with pakistani.

we've been talking to the media quite a lot and we don't recognize that we talk within the government and separately with the military. so we've created or added to the dysfunctional policy by having these two dialogue. it's very critical to knowledge them together in the room. when our leadership is to pakistan or in people come from pakistan to washington. there's some benefit when we have them all in the same room together. have them understand that the u.s. is not prepared and given the current situation in the united states, that it's not

going to be possible. >> thank you. >> i will expand on them very briefly. i think it's important transparency first to knowledge at the very least countries don't do themselves as having strategic and trained. u.s. and pakistan have medium and long-term strategic interests. when honest dialogue happens, it's important to acknowledge right now pakistan perceives its strategic interests in the u.s. and so there is a disconnect. let me also say when having that debate and dialogue and discussion that's important as well for operational regions, there's been a lot of reliance of military to military

relationship and in the long-term, we need to be taking a greater step to build up civilian government in pakistan that's going to be moving away, even if the civilian government to pakistan will ultimately continue reliance on military isi is not a recipe for long-term stability. >> i think one important step is to be honest. besides a big mistake in the past several years. the united states has criticized pakistan in ways that have been unhelpful. it's also conducted obligations in afghanistan and pakistan without the knowledge that has been unhelpful. at the same time, pakistan has to admit from the government side and the think tank side. the pakistan government has to admit that they have supported

the institute. u.s. government officials need to have a trusting relationship and that honesty has not been there over the past decade. i would say both sides at this point have made mistakes, but both sides also have to admit that the mistakes are insane ways to mutually address them. we will never move forward. >> my time is up, but maybe mr. dr. kagan can. >> i think it's going to be a very long time before they trust us or we trust them given the history of our relationship. they have persisted in south asia.

one of them for a long time and the other that decimate trust that people in the region would have been nice. one is that we will always abandon them that we will always at the end of the day grew tired of the game and they'll be stuck with whatever is left there. the other since 9/11 is that we care about bin laden once we get bin laden wilco and everything else is a tool to that end. and i think we stand at a very important precipice in american policy right now because if we take action now that reinforce those beliefs, first to welcome the repercussions will not just be felt in pakistan. they will be felt in countries benefiting are going through the air of spring and felt around the world because they are very profound truths of american foreign policy. i think even more importantly it is essential that we find ways not only to communicate our frustration to pakistan, which we do we need to do, but also communicate the fact we are not

leaving whatever the thing means. that's not to say we'll have 150,000 troops forever, but it is to say we will not whatever we do repeat mistakes of the 1990s when we're worried of this struggle or thought we had one and abandoned the region and play no further valenta were attacked. it is critical we find ways to send the message we are not going to do that and to show us in many other places sending messages is much less important than what you actually do. >> well, i want to thank our witnesses for your very, very valuable testimony and again, i regret, but it is the reality of our circumstances that we have these other issues that have come in conflict with their schedule and ask the witnesses witnesses to please respond any questions in writing if in fact

there would be some that come from our members that were not able to ask questions today. i thank you for your testimony in the hearing record will remain open for 10 days. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> homeland security secretary janet napolitano will be on capitol hill tomorrow and talk about security and threat of

terrorism for another give him the death of osama bin laden and his foreign policy implications, we talk with form the army ranger,

andrew exum, a fellow at the center for new american security. from tuesday's "washington journal," this is about a half an hour." continues. host: andrew exum joins us, a fellow at the center for a new american security. you were an army ranger and work for general mcchrystal. what does the death of osama bin laden meat for al qaeda -- mean for al qaeda? guest: they plan terror attacks for the af-pak region and abroad. operationally, this will not have much impact. sophisticated terrorist organizations like al qaeda -- the operational effect that these decapitation campaigns have is minimal.

as far as strategic affects, that remains to be seen. it is too early to tell what effect the death of osama bin laden will have on al qaeda as a movement, will have on their recruitment, will have on perceptions of the united states, perceptions of al qaeda. i think that al qaeda's star had already been on the wane throughout the arabic-speaking world, at least. the death of osama bin laden is almost a footnote to the winning -- waning of al qaeda in arabic-speaking world. host: you are talking about needing to see things play out, but the taliban -- effort is made in afghanistan. can this at a dif -- candace have any implication there? guest: it might have an impact in ways that don't have anything to do with al qaeda.

there is a fear among afghan leaders as well as pakistan eights -- pakistanis that osama bin laden is dead, and the reason that the united states went there and the first place, and there is fear that america will now leave afghanistan. that might be quite useful when it comes to getting the afghans to do things that we think that afghan leaders need to do in order to get afghanistan to be a viable country could with respect to pakistan, again, part of the problem has been at the center race in pakistan. -- has been the sanctuaries in pakistan. given the way a somewhat belated was living and has now been killed, the united states -- given the way osama bin laden was living and now has been killed, the united states now has a bridge. he did not die in some cave in

the northwest province or the federally administered tribal areas. he died living relatively quite well, and seemed to be living well for some time. there are questions that u.s. policy-makers will have with their pakistani counterparts, and we have leverage over the pakistanis that we have not had for some time. host: there is an op-ed in "the new york times" to date by richard clarke -- "bin laden's dead. al qaeda's not." guest: i think with respect to the arabic-speaking world, when i left afghanistan in 2004, my last tour as a uniformed military officer, i spent the next five years in lebanon and egypt. returning to egypt just a few months ago for the revolution, it was remarkable degree to

which al qaeda is not really an issue in the arabic-speaking world, and the radical extremist brand of islam espoused by al qaeda was really a non-factor, and a lot of the things taking place in libya and syria and egypt. there has been a degree of rejection of that ideology, which was never that popular to begin with. however, richard clarke is correct when he says that al qaeda is still the danger. al qaeda's affiliate's remain somewhat strong, a small but dedicated cadre of supporters throughout not just the arabic- speaking world, but europe and indonesia, maybe. these groups maintain operational capability that we shouldn't underestimate. host: michigan, richard joins us. republican line. caller: good morning. i've got a question for your

guest. he has been over there in the arab countries and he was in the army and everything else, so he surely knows that bin laden died in 2001 and that this whole thing is just an incredible propaganda stunt. the media is complicit in it. it is time for america to start seeing through this stuff. i wish he would stand up right now and be a patriot and say, " hey, man, you are being lied to. this guy was murdered. ben is yo -- benazir bhutto, before she was murdered, and we allowed that to happen because we supported the other guy. guest: there will be reversed not just in the arabic-speaking world, but also in the in the state's -- and elsewhere there will be rumors not just in the arabic speaking world but in the

united states that osama bin laden is not really dead. i assure the caller that i spent a good deal of my life trying to kill or capture osama bin laden and it was after 2001. we have not been able to be successful until just now, and we can and our special operating forces that we were successful a few days ago. host: what were the effects of releasing the photographs of osama bin laden dead, or releasing video footage of the burial at sea to as far as carter -- as far as garner a reaction in the muslim world? guest: the same reaction as releasing the long-form birth certificate of the president. i was watching al jazeera yesterday, and the death of osama bin laden was reported as fact, but you will always have a small dedicated minority of

people for whom the prevailing narrative is not satisfactory. you of conspiracy theories no matter what -- evidence is -- you will have conspiracy theories no matter what evidence is produced. it is understood that he died bloodily, but for obvious reasons, you do not want to release footage of a person who died of a gunshot wound to the head. not a pretty picture, not something that we want splashed across the front pages of papers around the world. host: tim in michigan, a democrat. caller: how you doing? i think it is crazy. we released photos of our own president being shot in the head. how could you say that? thanks for the seals, they are great, they are awesome. i have watched them worked out. kudos to them. they are the tip of the sword,

the samurais of today. first off, to think that osama bin laden was killed in 2001 is ludicrous. it took a man who wasn't in business with the bin laden family to get him, and it happened to be at democrat, it happened to be our president right now, obama. he did a great job, and i want to thank him, and i want to thank all the servicemen. i would like them to come on, and i would like to help find some of the victims from alabama. they are missing. there is a lot of work to be done in the united states. as far as pakistan goes, cut their aid. we don't have to help everybody in the world and we don't have to pay that interest rate that

we pay china to do it. but anyway, thanks to the military for everything you have done. guest: certainly, it is a moment to really thank not just the seals but all the special operations units involved in this operation. i completely understand the caller's focus on the tragedies in alabama, and not just alabama, but my home town of chattanooga, where 70 people were killed in and around my home town. i understand the sentiment, to just want to bring the boys home. first off, the collar's praise of the president seems to be a spot on. it appears that president obama made a tough and gutsy call and conducted this operation with the utmost to rationalism, everything we expected the president to do -- but most

professionalism, everything expected the president to do. even though we were distracted with the challenges of al qaeda and afghanistan and the war in iraq, president bush also made a good-faith effort to track down the osama bin laden. host: andrew exum was an adviser to general stanley mcchrystal and was active duty in the army. as a fellow at the center for a new american security, you have a blog. you talk -- year reflect a little bit on our screen -- i have a little bit of on our screen -- your reactions to osama bin laden being killed, from your experience as a veteran fred can you share what happened and what you did? guest: i left the army in 2004,

went to graduate school, studied terrorist movements, insurgent movements, and everything i had learned in books and seen on the ground suggest that decapitation campaigns don't really matter. they don't have an operational effect on the organization. i told myself for years, even if we killed osama bin laden, it would not matter to al qaeda. i was surprised by my own personal reaction to the news. i got a text message from my cousin, on leave from the marine corps, here in washington visiting his girlfriend, and within 10 minutes the two of us were at the bar. within half an hour, we were joined by a dozen other veterans of iraq and afghanistan, killing around and remembering those -- i couldn't be there a few nights ago -- it was pretty emotional experience. the operational effect on al qaeda is not very significant.

however, the strategic air act is too early to see -- strategic effect is too early to see. i have seen the effect this has had on our own rao, the fight against al qaeda. we will see what type of act this as against the enemy's morrell. host: josh, california, independent line. caller: first of all, i want to say as a disclaimer that i do not downplay sacrifices that servicemen make. you know, if i or someone else or even themselves don't appreciate the experience that is part of the nature of war -- i do want make a comment about what you said about the ability of the current administration to track down osama bin laden. what i am interested in as far as information -- they are

always talking about the forensics of this, how long he has been living there. i will leave that at that, but i also wanted to comment about what you said about pakistan's leverage as a result of having at mr. bin laden in the country, presuming that mr. bin laden had been there for a very long time, which i assume that he has. i am very upset at his death. revealing him to be there is not going to give pakistan less leverage in the world -- host: josh, why are you upset about this? caller: i am a very religious person. i was raised in jewish, celebrated different holidays, and truly religious people are few and far between, and you don't fight them off.

when you do find them, the saddest part is that there are so many people that they would not recognize as true, godly person -- host: we will leave it there. guest: i wanted to ask a follow- up question -- you felt sympathy for osama bin laden and saw him as a man of faith. i think osama bin laden is an evidence of how faith can be distorted and. it can be beautiful in islam or to deism or christianity, but it can be a terrific thing -- islam or judaism or christianity, but it can be a horrific thing. we pray for the victims of al qaeda and have them in our hearts as we go forward. host: counterterrorism adviser

john brennan said u.s. officials hope to build on the killing of osama bin laden and to destroy the al qaeda terrorist organization. guest: killing of osama bin laden has a limited effect, but the intelligence that they perhaps collected in the state house has the potential to be very significant. if anything, the special operations forces and intelligence community can pat themselves on the back for maybe a few minutes after this success, but they have got a lot more to do and now they have a lot more material to drive operations. whenever you are conducting identify your targeting and special operations, it is all intelligence driven. you can only do what you have the intelligence to do, and there is a chance, as we collect and exploit the intelligence that was gathered by the field scene that killed

osama bin laden, we could have a much more devastating effect on the senior leadership and on al qaeda operations going forward. that is a very encouraging thing. host: south carolina. nina joins us. caller: how are you both this morning? guest: doing quite well. caller: i appreciate the previous callers, but i wanted to say to the two of you, andrew, those who have been affected in your home town, i am sorry to hear about that. thank you, host, for having this conversation. i certainly agree that our troops have done an excellent job i commend their part of birds and their work -- it speaks the -- i comment their hard efforts and their work. it speaks to the power of americans, whether you are

republican or democrat, the tremendous potential we have to come together and combat terrorism. i am struck by the way we learned of osama bin laden's death. that is a day that reminded you what it is to be an american, whether you are a republican or democrat or independent my heart goes out to the families of those affected on 9/11. i think the death of osama bin laden is it will come -- some form of closure to them. you were able to accomplish this tremendous milestone, and thank you both for having this conversation . guest: sure thing, nina. this is a moment for americans to come together, and we shouldn't be too triumphant and crow too much about the death of this one man, but it is an opportunity to feel good about

the men and women who are in harm's way and have done so much to combat al qaeda and disrupt al qaeda since 2001. that is certainly a moment to feel good as an american. i agree with you wholeheartedly. host: "the new york times" has a story -- it talks about a second in command. talk about their relationship and what he brings to the table that osama bin laden did not. guest: i think it is too early to talk about it will take the mantle of osama bin laden red obviously, the focus is on zawahiri, the no. 2, egyptian doctor, often seen as an organ as th -- as an organizer, not as charismatic. his organization is not nearly as successful in terms of gatherings of the. bin laden really did have -- he was quite charismatic.

even people with no sympathy for al qaeda at will listen to -- would listen to and watch his tapes. it is difficult to see who takes his mantle going forward, and to see how al qaeda will change. whether it will become more operationally diffuse, will continue this trend towards having the local franchises, on the arabian peninsula or in north africa. i would be cautious in saying about how things are going to change in the short term or near term. i have a feeling the stories we are writing a year from now will not look like the stories we are writing 2448 hours afterwards. host: republican caller. hi. caller: i do have a comment, but first i would like to comment on the military.

i have a son who is been in the marine service for 12.5 years, and my husband was in the military -- guest: thank you for your family's service. caller: i have to tell you that what disturbs me so much, and that is because i'm passionate about our entire military and what they have done and all the lies that -- lives that and lost, not just military, but even civilian, lives lost and injuries as a result of this whole exercise. i will tell you, what bothers me is our carrier taking osama bin laden out to sea to bury him like we do for military honors. why should we have done that?

to me, that is like stepping on the graves of all the military -- guest: i understand what you are saying. let me see if i can answer that, because i do understand what you are saying. burial at sea is burial at sea. is not necessarily a ceremonial burial at sea. you can bury them in a full funeral celebration, or you can bury them in an unmarked grave. this was unable to cope lent of the letter read the reason that the -- did this was not -- this was the naval equivalent of a letter. the reason that they did this was not to honor osama bin laden at all. i understand exactly why they did it. as far as treating his body with respect, watching him in

accordance with islamic law, trying to do things as respectfully as possible, i think that reflects greatly on our values. the way we treat, especially have a slip through some of the dishonorable practices -- having lived through some of the dishonorable practices with the way we treated detainees -- the way we treat detainees, at the enemy dead, prisoners of war, reflects a lot on american values. the u.s. navy and military in general did this quite well. if i could just close by thanking you and your family for your service to this nation, it is greatly appreciated. thank you. host: andrew exum is a fellow at the center for a new american security. this piece in "the new york times" -- it quote the chairman of the islamic studies

department at american university. "shrines are very powerful. on the other hand, the burial at sea could give rise to speculation about whether bin laden is really get." guest: absolutely right. it is a trade-off. under islamic practices, you want to bury the body in some way within 24 hours. otherwise, it is really seen as being disrespectful. the united states had a need to bury the body quickly. trying to enlist some country, whether it is afghanistan or the saudi arabia to accept the body to be buried on land, would be quite difficult on such short notice. nobody wants there to be a shrine to osama bin laden in their own countries. the united states made a decision that was based in part on expediency and in part on a thinking through how we prevent

some of the martyr shrines for osama bin laden tree again, looking at all the options available to the military and united states government, it was pretty wise. guest: again, it is too early to tell but when it comes to osama been reluctant -- and at a somewhat belated and al qaeda in general, they really have an -- on the -- when it comes to osama bin laden and al qaeda in general, they have really been on the wane. anyone who missed the maelstrom of the violence of iraq in 2005, 2006, 2007, they saw that al qaeda's victims were not

soldiers, they were other moslems, arabs themselves. if you see the way al qaeda conducted a terrorist campaign against saudi arabia in 2005, yemen in 2002, you see that the victims of al qaeda are more often than not not infidel westerners but other observant muslims. al qaeda has been on the wane. if you look at the political movements sweeping the arab- speaking world the past three months, al qaeda has not even been a factor. guest: well, i think a better way -- the shrine we have for the sacrifices that have been given by u.s. servicemen and intelligence officers is really at the national cemetery,

whether you are talking about arlington or even in my hometown of chattanooga. if you want to pay respects to the men and women who have done so much to bring his men to justice, you can just -- to bring this man to justice, you can just go to the tomb of the unknown soldier. host: abu muqawama -- what does that mean? guest: it started as a joke. i was studying in lebanon, and it means "father of resistance." i've spent most of my life fighting in non-state actors on the battlefield. host: miami, florida, independent- line. caller: thank you, great appreciation to andrew and his

service. i commend the way that the united states and the cia kept everything under wraps and waited until everything was just done. i understand we have to have allies and the certain things that the secretary has to say as far as political chatter, but just, my hat is off to these guys. so many years, and just thinking about those poor people burning in the towers, jumping out of windows, the way that -- when i found out, it was late. i woke up my mother and brother. i remember being in the navy and seeing my first seals in my class, and the way they took every guy and his wing and trained and the right way. it is remarkable for what we as americans can do. we are not going to agree on everything, but when we put our minds to it and put our effort,

and the way we gave this guy a proper burial, i hope we can do that for the men and women who went along with us, with the graves at arlington. it has been on the news. i just want to thank every veteran, every person in the department of defense, and thae media. i want to -- i know we have mixed feelings, but it felt great to bring this guy to justice. thank you very much for your service. but navy, the army, civilians, thank you very much, let's keep doing a great job. guest: first off, thank you for your service. you touched on something that a lot of americans are feeling. this is a moment to feel proud to be an american and feel good about herself this is an acknowledgement that we are harder fights ahead, whether it

is u.s. debt or the fight against al qaeda. we hope we can keep the same unity going forward. host: what does this mean for our relationship with pakistan going forward? guest: that is a great question. this is a tremendously embarrassing moment for pakistan. pakistani denialism regarding extremists in pakistan has been a real problem for the united states. on the one hand, if there are any pakistanis watching, the people of pakistan have suffered greatly over the past 10 years and that made some of the biggest sacrifices in this war on terror. i don't want to downplay that. on the other hand, however, the government of pakistan or elements of the government of pakistan have consciously, deliberately trained and supported and employed a violent nine-state actors in support of

pakistani security and political interests, whether you are talking about kashmir or afghanistan. pakistan has to have a reckoning of their support for these violent and on state actors. this is a great time for the united states to really take it to the pakistanis. when the cia contractor raymond davis was convicted in pakistan and arrested for killing two pakistanis in an apparent robbery attempt, pakistan use that as leverage to try to extract concessions from the united states with respect to our drone program, with respect to intelligence personnel within pakistan. now is the time that the tables have turned, and the united states at this moment needs to make it clear to the pakistanis that things cannot go on as they have. i really do think this is a moment where the nine states as an almost unprecedented degree of leverage -- where the united

states has an almost unprecedented degree of leverage. when the details came out about how a somewhat belated was living a mile away from the military academy in -- how osama bin laden was living at a mile away from the military academy in relative comfort, it is not going to look good for pakistan or the intelligence services. the united states should use this as an opportunity to negotiate a new type of partnership for pakistan. we need them, they need us, but things cannot continue the way they've gone so far. host: what did you make of ed in "theop =- washington post"? guest: i was infuriated by reading it. he was the victim of violent

extremists. they killed his wife, benazir bhutto. on the other hand, the chickens have come home to roost. pakistani security services have trained and utilized terror groups in pursuit of pakistani interests, and it has come back to haunt them. host: josh, welcome. caller: i have a question about the long-term impact of the finding of osama bin laden will assist the united states in going forward with its goals. guest: yes, again, one of the things that -- the story that has not been told yet, but which i mentioned earlier, is the degree to which the intelligence or information that has been found on osama bin laden -- there have been hard

drives are paper documents, anything that can be exploited going forward. this has the potential -- for all we know, osama bin laden was day-ured with the a few- old newspapers and hard drives with movies on them. but if there is detail on the hard drives that are captured, other documents that the taken from the scene in abbottabad, the effect on our planning process going forward to try to disrupt and dismantle al qaeda could be highly significant. again, as one intelligence official said, the united states has been pretty successful since september 11 in disrupting al qaeda and al qaeda activities. we have not been successful in dismantling, much less defeating, al qaeda b.

these types of intelligence resources and resources will allow you to go forward and start to dismantle a lot of the command and control networks in al qaeda. that could be potentially devastating for them. host: houston, texas. george, republican. caller: i could not agree more with this gentleman about reviewing our policies with pakistan. i think part of the problem with the united states is that we have that a failure to recognize that you are not really dealing with a state, you are dealing with a collection of tribes that were left in power by the british empire as it pulled out. you have to the critics that the same situation in india, -- you have to a great extent the same situation in india and any number places, even malaysia, which was in the same situation. we really need to repeat what

we're doing in terms of the amount of funds and things we are pumping into these countries, because a lot of lives and treasure are being wasted. we have to be focused on a lot of -- host: let us get a quick response. guest: george, you touch on is something really important, which is that we tend to treat them as unitary actors, that the president speaks for all pakistan. we know that is not true for the united states, but it is more true of less than it is with pakistan -- more true of us that it is with pakistan. even the intelligence services cannot be considered to be a unitary actor. going forward, we may need to hold pakistan a little bit tighter than push them farther away. if we do that, then we have to make best use of whatever

leverage we have in front of us to make sure that pakistan is not being in a way that is contrary not just to our interests but their interests. host: andrew exum, thank you for being with us this morningng guest:

when british prime minister david cameron spoke in the house of commons about the killing of osama bin laden and britain's relationship with pakistan. after a ten minute statement, he took questions from members of parliament about pakistan the taliban and the mission in libya. this is just over an hour. >> the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

consequences for the security of our people at home and abroad and for our foreign policy and putting the partnership with pakistan, military action afghanistan and the fight against terrorism across the world. i chaired a meeting to begin to address some of these issues the national security council has met this morning and i wanted to come to the house this afternoon to take the first opportunity to address these consequences directly and to answer honorable member's questions. mr. speaker, at 3 a.m. yesterday i received a call from president obama. he informed me u.s. special forces had successfully mounted a targeted operation against the compound in pakistan. osama bin laden had been killed along with four others, bin laden's son, to others linked and a female member of his family entourage. there was a ferocious firefight

and the u.s. helicopter had been destroyed but there was no loss of american life. i assure the whole house would join me in congratulating president obama and praised his skill of the american special forces to carry out this operation. it is destroyed the heart of international terrorism and a great achievement for america and all who joined in the struggle to defeat al qaeda. we should remember today in particular the brave servicemen and women from britain who've given the lives in the fight against terrorism across the world and pay tribute especially to those british forces who played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin laden. he was the man responsible for 9/11 which was not only the hermetic killing of americans but remains to this day the largest loss of british life in any terrorist attack. he was a man who inspired further atrocities including madrid, istanbul, and of course here in london and let us

remember he was a man who posed as a leader of muslims but was actually a mass murderer of muslims all over the world. indeed he killed more muslims than people of any other faith. mr. speaker, nothing will bring back the loved ones lost command of course there is no punishment at our disposal that can remotely fits the appalling crimes which he was responsible. but i hope that at least five families there is a sense of justice being served as the long dark chapter in their lives is finally closed. as the head of a family group for the airline's flight 93 put we are raised obviously never to hope for someone's death but we are willing to make an exception in this case. he was evil and our world is a better place without hampshire. mr. speaker, britton was with america for the first day of the struggle to defeat al qaeda. the result today should be as strong as it was then. there can be no pumas de and no

safe refuge for those who kill in the name of this poisonous ideology. mr. speaker, the first focus should be on our own security. one l. bin laden is gone, the threat al qaeda remains. christa risk al qaeda and its affiliates in places like yemen all to demonstrate your able to operate effectively. and of course there's always the risk of a radicalized individual acting alone for the so-called loan wolf attack. so we must be more vigilant than ever and maintain that vigilance for some time to come. the terrorist threat in the u.k. is already as severe which is as high as it can go without intelligence of a specific threat. we will keep that under review working closely with the intelligence agencies and the police. in terms of people traveling overseas we've updated or a device and encourage british nationals to monitor the media carefully for local reactions to remain vigilant to exercise caution in public places and

avoid demonstrations. and we ordered embassies across the world to review the security. mr. speaker, let me turn next to pakistan. the fact the bin laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests he must have had an extensive support network in pakistan. we don't currently know the extent of the network, so it's right that we ask searching questions about it and we will. but let us start with what we do know. pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world. as with president zardari and prime minister john mauney said when i spoke to them yesterday as many as 30,000 innocent civilians were killed in pakistan and more pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism of the international forces killed in afghanistan. osama bin laden was an enemy of pakistan. he had declared war against the pakistani people and ordered attacks against. president obama said in his

statement, and i quote colin counterterrorism cooperation with pakistan helped the leaders of bin laden and compound where he was hiding. continued cooperation will be just as important in the days ahead. mr. speaker, i believe it is in britain's national interest to recognize that with pakistan, we share the same struggle against terrorism. that is why we will continue to work with our pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, strengthening plots and taking action to stop them. it's why we will continue to honor our aid policies including support for the education as a critical way of helping the next generation of pakistanis turn their back on extremism. but above all, it is why we are one of the founding members of the friends of democratic pakistan because i believe it is by working with the democrats in that country we can make sure the whole country shares the same determination to fight terror and terrorism. mr. speaker i also spoke yesterday to president karzai in afghanistan.

we agreed the death of bin laden provides a new opportunity for afghanistan and pakistan to work together in order to achieve stability on both sides of the border. our strategy towards afghanistan is straightforward and hasn't changed. we are capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces. we should take this opportunity to send a clear message now is the time to separate themselves from al qaeda and to participate in a peaceful political process. mr. speaker, then let the myth of the mud and was lost during the risking his life for the cause as he moved around in the hills and the trouble areas. the reality was different. the man encouraged others to make the ultimate sacrifice while he himself had in the comfort of a large expensive vila experiencing none of the harsher he expected supporters to. mr. speaker finally, let me

briefly update the house on libya. in recent weeks we stepped up our a campaign to protect the civilian population. every element of the war machine has been degraded to read over the last few days alone, nato aircraft struck 35 target's into the armored personnel carriers as well as bunkers and an ammunition storage facilities. we've made strikes against his commanders control centers that direct the operations against civilians. over the weekend the reports that in one of the strikes his son was killed. mr. speaker, let me be clear of the target's chosen for set by the u.n. resolutions 1917 and 1973. the resolutions permit all necessary measures to protect civilian life including attacks on command control and mrs.. mr. speaker this week and missile attacks on the british and italian embassies. we utterly deplore this.

the regime is in clear breach of the vienna convention to protect the missions and we will hold them to account and we have already expelled libyan ambassador. there were looted as well as destroyed and the world war ii memorialist a secretive. the u.n. felt obliged to pull her carpenter people out. much of the call for the cease-fire. they wanted to talk and the kid and lead mines in the harbor to stop humanitarian aid from getting in. if he was said to have hated each other. but there was a common thread running between them. they both feared the the media that democracy and civil rights could take hold in the arab

world. when we should continue to degrade this, dismantled and defeat the terrorist network, a big part of the long-term answer is the success of democracy in the middle east, and of course the conclusion of the arab-israel peace process. for 20 years, bin laden claimed that the future of the muslim world would be his. but libya has shown is egypt before it is that people are rejecting everything bin laden stood for. instead of replacing dictatorship with his extremist totalitarianism, they are choosing democracy. ten years on from the terrible tragedy of 9/11 with the end of the london and the democratic awakening across the arab world we must seize this unique opportunity to deliver a decisive break with the forces of al qaeda and its poisonous ideology which caused so much suffering to so many across so many years and i commend this statement to the house.

islamic mr. speaker think the prime minister for his statement and i join him in the express yesterday of president obama. this side of the house wholeheartedly supports the action taken by the united states to bring osama bin laden to justice. we are grateful to president obama for taking the decision and to the u.s. special forces who carried it out. at this time we remember the harrowing scenes of the death and destruction of 9/11, and we remember, too, all together on atrocities carried out by al qaeda before 9/11. including my robie, bali, istanbul, madrid, and of course the 7/7 bombing in london. the world as a better and safer place without bin laden commanding or inciting acts of terror. we should never, mr. speaker, fall for the idea that the community or fees. in each case the objective was the same, to kill and maim as many innocent men, women and children as possible of all

faiths in the background. mr. speaker, our response must be not to claim premature victory in the fight against terrorism but to heal the divisions that he sought to create. we should do that by reaching out the perpetrators of terror, reaching out to all of those willing to accept the path and the same time ensuring the continued vigilance here at home. all sides of the house will walk in the response of the pakistani government over the past 48 hours. mr. speaker the remains of course a great deal of uncertainty about who was aware of bin ladens presence and locations and pakistan especially given the proximity to pakistani military bases. now pakistan's leaders continue to take a stand against terrorism but can the prime minister say when he talked to president zardari and the prime minister what discussions he had about ensuring the security operated in pakistan fully supports that antiterrorist effort. the development reminds us why

we took military action in afghanistan which under the taliban gave shelter to bin laden and al qaeda. but they should also as the prime minister said reinforce the need for the lasting political settlement in afghanistan as the only long-term guarantee of peace and security. does the prime minister agree with me that we need greater urgency for the political solution and engagement in both parts of the taliban that are ready to announce islands? can he tell whether he thinks there are ways we can sharpen the choice in the taliban including by deepening the political process and afghanistan. turning to yemen and al qaeda's remaining stronghold we must do everything to combat terrorism and increase pressure on the supporters and we must also support movements that we get less likely that terrorism will take root. the most effective answer to al qaeda's didier realogy to introduce by the people of north africa and the least. they've not been turning to an ideology of hate by demanding

the right to control their destiny with space reform and economic progress. in that context progress has been made in consolidating the democratic gains of egypt and tunisia. what is also being done to ensure the leaders of a promised reform stick to their commitment and to force those still resource and to violence and syria to stop doing so. on libya it is clear we cannot abandon the libyan people to the revenge. but will the prime minister also take the opportunity to reassure the house in our work in the direction that will be clear the fall the would take in the terms of the u.n. security council resolution 1973. the see further agree doing so puts rich and principal maintaining regional support for actions to enforce the will of the security council? turning to post and as the puna mr. agree the reaction of, hamas

and the oppression is deeply regrettable? and does he agree with me we should continue to make efforts to restart the middle east peace process? can he say what discussions he sat with president obama and the other leaders on this important area? finally, can i support the prime minister's call to show increased vigilance at this time? al qaeda suffered a serious blow but it remains a threat. can also take this opportunity to offer my thanks and the things of this side of the house to the police and security services who worked tirelessly in public and behind the scenes to keep us safe as well as the british around the world? above all, let me say 9/11 was one of the most horrific events of the generation. for the victims and their families and putting in this country, nothing can remove the pain they feel. the death of osama bin laden singh was a clear message, in the face of terrorist acts, the world will not rest until justice is done. >> the prime minister. >> khanna thank the gentleman for his statement and the way he made it, he's a salute levirate

to freeze the security forces, particularly perhaps those in the security services who never get public recognition for the work they do to keep people in our country safe. he is absolutely right to talk as strongly as he did about 9/11 and the memories people have of it. i'm sure everyone in this house remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing on that day and how they felt. and i think he's right to say we should use this to try to heal many of the divisions in our world. on the specifics questions, he asked questions about pakistan and this question that i think will come up a lot about who knew what and what will be due to find out who knew what? i think what matters most of all as i said, the fact the democratic leaders of pakistan and indeed, to work with them and those involved in security and military matters and try to hold discussions with them together, which is what we did on my last visit to pakistan. on afghanistan, he asks how can we increase the urgency of a

political solid and i think that is absolutely the right thing to do. again, part of the answer lies in pakistan, and the discussions we can have with them to encourage all of those involved to give up violence and accept the afghan constitutions and critics to renounce any link with al qaeda. he asked what more can be done to deepen the space process in egypt and tunisia. my honorable friend and egypt mr. de i do think one of the key ways of doing this to the european union and britain along with others is pushing very hard for total update of europe's relations with its neighborhood to make them attractive is something that has the conditions attached to them what is happening in syria is unacceptable. we are leading the process in europe of setting about proper pressure and in the arms embargo take the association agreement off the table and looking at further steps including travels

and asset freezes and other things we can do to show what is happening in syria is unacceptable. resolution 1973, yes, we will, but i would say that this does not mean dahuk sticking with the increasing set of things we're doing. all the time we should be asking what more can we do to raise the diplomatic military and sanctions pressure and within all necessary measures to protect civilian life there are many more things we can do and should do to keep the pressure up. he's right of hamas's reaction is very regrettable. i do believe though that the middle east peace process is if you like the third leg of the strategy to fundamentally diffuse al qaeda, the first leg is the attack on the terrorist and work as successfully dealt yesterday. the second is democracy and progress in the middle east and in the muslim countries. the third is a middle east peace

process that works. i'm seeing benjamin netanyahu tomorrow morning and we will do everything we can in our power to encourage both sides to recognize the historical times and the chance there is to forge a deal that will last. >> [inaudible] remarkable operations. we also make a similar tribute to the united states intelligence agency without his professionalism the actual location of bin laden would never have been achieved. islamic clearly this was a painstaking operation. if you like a painstaking piece of protection that went on for many, many months. and i can tell that from speaking to president obama, that this was not some chance opportunity that came up, but very careful work put in place and great professionalism

skills. >> the premise for talks about the three strands of the strategy to deal with the continuing problem of al qaeda. might i suggest an additional strain about the conditions like ideology about al qaeda which in many ways and means the most enduring threat posed by al qaeda notwithstanding. we need to continue programs to deal with under achievement by some, not all come under employment by them at work to reduce the opportunities for their mind to be taken over as an ideology. >> one is dealing with problems of poverty and inequality and underachievement which must be done.

but separate to that is the whole bin laden al qaeda extremist islamists thread of painting muslim communities as somehow victim, perpetual victimhood and saying that they can never successfully coexist in western space society is absolutely key that we target the ideology and challenging only in the end by challenging the ideology that we will win this battle. >> understanding dissatisfaction and the relation of those who lost family members and the inferno of 9/11 my honorable friend agrees that the reality is some things are unchanged by the death of osama bin laden. the threat remains jihad must be confronted and adequate resources, effective international cooperation and good intelligence remain the essential. islamic my honorable friend is right there is a terrorist

threat still an al qaeda threat and we shouldn't overestimate what has happened but clearly the end of bin laden who was the leader and inspiration of the movement is a massive setback for al qaeda and its terrorist affiliate's and it's worth putting that on record. we have to go further and deal with the remaining senior leadership of al qaeda who are in the tribal land in pakistan. we then have to address the affiliate's in places like the a arabian peninsula and mog grab but as the honorable gentleman said, dealing with the pernicious ideology will be just as important as defeating the terrorists themselves. >> david? >> i endorse, mr. speaker, everything said this afternoon. in light of that short-term risks would the prime minister agree that the focus of the resources of the security and policing services here in britain should be entirely on

this issue. in the light of the words of the deputy prime minister this morning, the changes proposed to the police service are not set in stone with the prime minister agree to consider a pause in the government changes to the police service so that they can concentrate on what really matters to the british people clacks >> it seems to me not right to say that all of the police attention should be on this issue. we have a very serious situation in northern ireland as well, so we are balancing the risk that we have. in terms of police reform i think that we have seen some might say to the members a very successful modeling london with the mayor of the last government put in place, so actually having a system where the police feel more accountable towards an unelected individual and i look forward to extending that across the country. >> pakistan is a divided and

complex country and in the death of osama bin laden would only exacerbate the tensions. would you agree that our priority should be to assist pakistan remaining a stable state but only because one, they are a nuclear power and, too, they would have a crucial role to play in the settlement in afghanistan? >> my friend is right in the remarks that he made. of course, there are frustrations and questions the would be asked about who knew what in pakistan, and how could this man lived in such a large house in such a sort of comfortable looking community come so close to the military installations? but i'm absolutely clear that the british interest is working with a democratic politicians of pakistan to deal with the shared issues we have confidence extremism, making sure we are dealing with a safe rather than dangerous nuclear power, and as he says, reaching a settlement in afghanistan so we can bring the brave troops home.

islamic the brave and incredibly skilled individuals who carried out this operation desert profound gratitude as do all of those with their lives on the line to protect us in putting our own armed forces. can the prime minister in tackling though, the wide ideology of al qaeda come actions taken abroad as well as at home, and the reconciliation track in afghanistan is enormously important and surely this operation now gives us an opportunity to step up activity. did he talk to the president of the united states about that when the smoke and if he didn't at this stage, will he do so? ..

the. >> and mr. speaker we will agree that while the threats by hamas whereas repugnant as wrong but nevertheless the move by the new masters of egypt toward opening the border with hamas controlled gaza are the clearest possible illustrations to suggest of the triangle of the outline that there'll be no support for modern arab

opinion without a long term solution. >> it is clearly right about this and we have to take a positive and optimistic view that while there will we much difficulties the past -- palestinian unity lowered should be a step forward and we need to make sure it is a step forward. but then to persuade the israelis and others that there are uncertainties in the world today it is an opportunity to deal with more democratic neighbors in the future and spent the prime minister will know the mass -- vast majority with high the reject al qaeda and osama bin laden so will he ensure going forward to build the resilience of the young people to the extremism and take seriously

as he does the challenge to the ideology that we have to put more work on to make sure do make an impact? >> ringing through the review of what we have been doing because the problem has been not that a minority of british back al qaeda but there has been the ideology pernicious in some communities against a minority in some that give some comfort to the stories that al qaeda provides about victimhood and the rest of it and you have to address that issue as it strains the swamp as i mix my metaphors. >> it is clear osama bin laden would influence those but would you agree the rule of law is important it is a shame we could not bring him before a court?

>> i listened very carefully to john branded briefing and he made clear that they were prepared to take did not been alive and capture him but only if it was a situation in which they were in a firefight yet risk themselves but i think the americans were completely justified with what they did and the world is much better off without him. >> in the context of counterterrorism our allies take out bin laden in pakistan and then libya so why can't we a arrest had a terrorists who was at londonderry and friends to kill police officers and destroy the political process? >> as the gentleman knows i take a strong view that what we saw in londonderry is not acceptable the police and i

are well funded and backed buy the police service. >> with a huge military sacrifice over the pakistani army with these conversations as a dowry today in sure that this has an evidence trail the marriage from any subsequent investigations with the bin laden compound that leaks -- link of pakistani state that those individuals will be hurt brought before? >> the conversation i had with the president sadari -- zadari they did not have the understanding that obama heche's on a bin laden was there but they

will have some searching questions by friends and foes alike over the coming days and they need to be prepared to answer them but to come back to the basic point* what is in our national interest? to have the enormous bust up an argument with pakistan to say we will work with the forces of democracy that wants to fight terror and terrorism? said is what it should be. >> earlier this secretary eighth tried to reassure the house that there is a diminished world service giving what they said about the democracies will he strategically review the role of the road service and the budget? >> and other departments had difficult settlements because of the financial situation we inherited. but the deal involving the bbc gave secure funding for his future of course, it is

perfectly possible to make economies and provided good service at the same time. >> while welcoming the prime minister emphasis on ideas does he share my concern that all too many people in muslim communities do not even except that bin laden was responsible for 9/11? what is this say about the failure of the west to get to the propaganda out worldwide? >> that is a good point* what is so i was discussing that to it is the minority of the muslim community who take that view that bin laden was not responsible but doesn't mean they're actively backing him but they have bought into the narrative of the israeli plot did we have to challenge that narrative we cannot have young people

growing up in our country believing this nonsense said it is incumbent upon all of us with the work that we do with our constituencies and mosques and community centers to challenge the thinking whenever it comes up to not believe we are challenging cultural sensitivities but we're making a clear point* about what it means to a modern democracy. >> a lot of that coverage of the osama bin laden staff was evil in a while the hates the manic and i congratulate the prime minister to avoid that language because he was not engaged in a holy war. this was not a crusade that we need to hear more muslim clerics making that clear? >> i am not sure i did avoid that word. [laughter] a leu stake religious device from the gentleman that that is a good point* that you have to remember oxide is

whole narrative is not muslims against the rest of the road the muslims against muslims. before moving on to the clash of civilizations but what we are seeing which is hopeful is that arab and muslim states saying they do not want to go to that sharia law society but move toward the building blocks of democracy making for a more peaceful world. >> at the memorial today to bed memorial to the bombings news of his death did not the obey with a sense of victory but that we are starting a new chapter in the world is a better place but with the bid moderns removal now calling for the seventh century changed for the non-violent democratic

and secular society. >> i think my honorable friend for his question because i know he suffered a loss that you can never bring back someone who has been lost but the best tribute we could pay to those who were lost in the murderous attacks in new york or london is not just a reluctant terrorist network that has created so much hatred and debt but two to see the arab world move to the freedom and democracy. >> mr. speaker bin laden is dead but the ideology is not even of the arabs have seen his followers there are parts of the ideology especially a pervasive use of victimhood and the sense

to use as a justification to kill others had a sometimes shared as not active supporters of terrorism therefore do is -- do you also except although bin laden is gone in the struggle between ideology must continue the political and ideological and security level? >> guy very much agree and i hope there can be cross party consensus because it would help in the review every recognize it is not enough to say we will prevent other extremist we need to prevent extremism and sometimes in the past three make a mistake to think let's talk to the extremist to stop the violent ones this is like trying to get to the bnp to help you with someone who was a violent fascist is not sensible in that category

zero were dealing with others. >> i want to see pakistan the prosperous and a successful country free of corruption. but there are so many stakes out where bin laden was found in regular is living over the last five years. this country will continue to finance then the government is to come clean about what has happened. >> you make an important point* just because we are long-term friends with pakistan as we should be doesn't mean every now and again we cannot deliver a tough message and when i went to pakistan one of those was i deliver the bid is unacceptable some people who do not pay their taxes it is not easy for us in the

west to take on our taxpayers to give to pakistan educational though vital if they don't collect taxes from their own people so dealing with corruption making the country more transparent and that the wealthy people pay taxes should be a part of their bilateral agenda. >> when you recently visited pakistan he announced technical cooperation on the ied use of the roadside explosive device is. could the prime minister review that cooperative agreement that the technical knowledge gained could be passed into the hands of terrorists very quickly and elsewhere with this threat to british and other lives? >> of course, the point* that i make is that pakistan has lost thousands of soldiers fighting extremist

in the value they are trying to root out a similar sort of taliban to what we're fighting in afghanistan. understand president zadari lost his wife to the extremist terrorists. we must be careful but working with pakistan to combat extremism as their own interest. >> mr. speaker can i commend my friends that we should deal with them constructively. charivari bear in mind what the president himself pointed out only 11% of the population has ever actually voted for the radical islamic parties and 85% of the population has ever voted for a al qaeda solution be a common force between the two countries. >> entirely. it is not just a corporation

we also need to cooperate in to combat the narrative of extremism. the same problem that exists as what we have dealt with our country symmetry betty welcomes the death of the evil man but then take two steps back when do with other people's affairs? >> the problem with that philosophical view is that made with in the interconnected world. the idea we put the barrier of to say what happens in pakistan doesn't affect us i think is wrong. there are 1.4 million people who live in britain who travel fair and we were threatened from terrorism from the tribal lands and i am afraid this stop the

world i want to get off foreign policy does not work anymore. >> mr. speaker what is a fully integrated interface community week hess seek to candidates standing for the conservative party will the prime minister agree with me that in my community yesterday's event will be holy war? >> i think the honorable gentleman makes the important point* it is important that all parties make sure they are fully representative of all parts of the community as we have learned it is not enough to open the door to invite people and you have to ask people see you can say to every community they are represented in whatever party would like to support and for whatever reason. >> can i ask the prime minister if he can tell us anything about the

counterterrorism rate taken place in east london? >> i can tell the lady is there was an arrest made in connection with a group of people today and that is a matter for the police perhaps my office can contact you. >> a som and bin laden may be gone but other supporters of al qaeda continue to live openly in the united kingdom protected ride the human rights act can we put more faith in the u.s. special forces than the bureaucrats of brussels? [laughter] >> i have sums of these i would say we're trying to do with this in a number of ways. we try to sign with pakistan a treaty on deportation we

can do poor people back to pakistan who may threaten this country and that is something i discussed with those when i was there recently but also trying to reform in we had a very productive sort of meetings with council members and widespread support so it took more attention from the nationalists. >> the conclusions said and those who are completely rejecting those and my honorable friends and i think that is true so the prime minister of the house but to foster democracy also respect human rights in north africa i think there

are bilateral actions we could take as the old and successful democracy that we should make of updating the foundation as we have discussed before. the biggest up is for the upn union to radically overhaul the program with assistance to the middle eastern neighbors and countries and frankly the program has been quite extensive but not successful to put into place the building blocks of democracy >> would it my friend agree although to build up democracy and long term but also improve security in the short term which what can expect from afghanistan?

it is a two-way relationship. not to be too transactional but we have to know we hope to gain from the partnership that we enter into and clearly work on counterterrorism is vital for the national interest of britain we're prepared to do a huge amount with pakistan with issues like education of children there are 17 million in pakistan not at school today. clearly 81 to keep them away from extremism or problems of migration it makes sense to continue the program. >> every terrorist attack is a disaster does the prime minister not agree at this time we should be thinking quite seriously about the whole strategy adopted overcapacity years that bin laden was financed by the west from the war in 1979 and have relations off the bat and then threw out the

rest of his life to not need to seriously think we're we're putting the money and who is supporting? because we have not analyze what is going on in those countries? >> of course, he is right we have to learn the lessons of success and failure of the past to apply to the future. of course, but it does seem there is some constancy and one is the promotion of democracy and freedom what i call the building blocks of something that is always a good thing to do so as much as we learn the lessons of the interventions. >> it is entirely right the taliban show you the calls of the prime minister to separate themselves to participate what mechanism exists in doing so a

currency so tammet and afghanistan? >> there are practical steps in place in terms of the reconciliation procedure available in afghanistan through the president's peace camps and enables taliban fighters to put down their weapons as long as six of the basic tenet of the afghan constitution but if the low-level integration say if you give of violence in give up al qaeda there is a political path because insurgencies and with a combination of the political process at the same time doesn't the six years of the treachery prove that the links from the language and

ethnicity from pakistan and of gas station afghanistan is rinna san that countries that depend on the continuing sacrifice the blood and treasure buy us this and there it excess of trust that we will do a deal to bring our boys home? i do not excepts that because that analysis leads you to believe the best option for britain and america is to cut itself off entirely from french abandon partnership with these countries and leave them to their own devices and i think that has been a mistake in the past that long-term partnerships is in our interest. >> speaking of the myth of osama bin laden colusa idea

that this individual move away from the western decadent lifestyle to a holy warrior? are you part in to buy the idea of the reality and trees he was a hypocrite running to the core of the ideology of al qaeda? >> that is the important point* that he was living in a cave directing the insurgency we see he was in a luxury million dollar villa in a suburban part of pakistan and those who may have revered him will now see him as a hypocrite living high on the hawala expecting others to suffer as her. >> can i a demint of the remarks and then to examine

the it this is not simply tata with the french ship is convenient but in many other areas? >> it is about building a very strong partnership on the long term not concentrating on the short-term transactions but the fact is we do have the shared interest to fight terrorism and expanding train and increasing education are making sure that likud trees are strong. the more you discuss this with politicians the greater the interest will grow. i don't think this is an

impossible dream but it is practical politics. >> mr. speaker could i turn attention to libya. you mentioned to tighten sanctions but what about those countries who have not signed up for the united nations resolution and allowing gadaffi to slip back into germany? >> we do think that is unacceptable and as well as implementing what is already in our resolutions we should think there are opportunities to take-- tighten sanctions over oil and production to make sure the regime comes to its senses a cannot go on terrorizing its own people. we will looking at stepping of the action as well as encouraging others to enforce what is already put into place.

>> the prime minister has referred several times the need to combat the global jihadist ideology. could and we have discussions to reverse the reed sections of the bbc arabic-language? also an idea to talk about bringing the bbc issues to pakistan. >> my foreign secretary said to me clearly many of the budget reductions being made are regrettable but they have to be a part to make sure the government is affordable and we have dealt with the deficit we have inherited but i am quite certain the bbc is fair and have to make sure that it goes further to provide exelon services that they do. >> in the context of libya libya, was support is a nato led coalition receiving from

other members of the arab league? >> we get a good support from those members the uae provides planes there is other logistics support for other members of the arab league the key is the contact group that my friend help to set up has had a number of things and further meetings forthcoming and the support of the arab league is extremely strong. it is not declining because arab league countries know themselves what they're dealing with when they're watching he is doing now minding the port and shelling and killing his own citizens they know if this completely unacceptable and likely to back the coalition >> any possible retaliatory affect is threatening and had to deploy the resources to combat the threat?

>> the point* of having a kobren meeting last night was to review the evidence and concerns about potential three tala tory attacks 1/2 to be on our guard across the world in terms of attacks in the uk or british assets or embassies around the world and we keep that picture permanently updated to give the advice to our embassies under review. you can never have certainty but we tried to be as vigilant as we can. >> our objective from afghanistan to believe the death of bin laden will heighten the day that our service people can come home? >> it does not automatically change the timetable that we happen we should stick to that but the military track we are pursuing there is a track to encourage the

taliban into the political process i would think that is held by the fact bin laden is no more and they see that utility to maintaining their link 57 that there is political sentiment and the prospect clearly can lead to british forces coming home but i don't think we should imagine the timetable will be different but to work hard to take every opportunity we can for the end that bin laden brings about. >> the prime minister accused the pakistani get rid of both ways but isn't it clear that isi was very clearly focused on the security compound and the cooperation of which he spoke was not have part of the condition a branch and route to reform of the isi in pakistan otherwise they

will be doomed from the beginning. >> you make the important point*. is clear bin laden had a support network in pakistan. the words that john breaded used and they are right for we do not know the full extent zero or where it reached into. we do know we should do everything we can to support the democrats and pakistan who want the entire country to work hard to combat terrorism however they can. >> the foreign secretary confirmed earlier the military action against individuals shoddily take place within the confines of proper legal authority is a prime minister expected to be concerned this places the courageous action against a som a bin laden? >> the legal and vice is a matter of the united states of u.s. operations and

troops it is entirely a matter for them but i think we should focus today on the fact the world is sundowner of the better off without this man living at large. >> mr. speaker arab like to thank the prime minister but intelligence sources confirmed colonel gaddafi is planning to use chemical weapons against the people of libya. what can wayne due to take the steps against gadaffi? >> raise the important point* there has been press reports of gas, masks been distributed by some of the libyan regime although we have no information if this is a reliable report or links to anything else but we're watching very, very closely at nine at with everything that is happening in libya and any threat to could use those weapons.

>> we reject the al qaeda characterization of western policy to impose their views to the muslim world but in order to win the hearts and minds well my friend to make clear in the viet now not part of our long-term policy to get rid of the regime but to get a cease-fire and settlement of from divide and conquer i suspect that is what most libyans want is peace. >> and makes a good point* is that we're not there to pick the government for libya to say you cannot have this government but this one, we're there to put into place the u.n. resolution 1773 to allow the libyan people to choose their own government. it may be a government we don't have 100% agreement but one thing we have learned that is the way to

have progress rather than to impose these from above. >> the prime minister spoke about bin laden is the not concerned putting him at sea may continue to the further mess whether not he is still alive? >> i think frankly that the u.s. took a sensible decision on the basis this was in line with all of the correct muslim practices for burial fifth. incidentally a luxury that bin laden never allowed to his victims and an inappropriate way at c and they should be commended for doing it in that way. >> mr. speaker following up on those rumors of conspiracy theory would be inappropriate for the u.s.

authorities did release the footage of the operation in pakistan? >> it is the matter for the u.s. to decide what to release but the only thing i would say from my limited experience is there are some conspiracy theorist will never be satisfied and some are so convinced elvis will show up. [laughter] so i think what the americans have done so far is sufficient to explain to all reasonable people that bin laden is no more. >> going back to that september morning in new york nobody seems to care about anybody else's religion now not only responsible for murder of venice cents but for raising disadvantage for muslims a major parts of the world. with the minister agree bin laden abandoned the faith the minute they determined

to slaughter invitation is sent people and will you agree to the society including muslim citizens? >> the fact is there is no place in islam for this ideology it is against what it is islam meant to be about and i hope the argument to get across is that this was entirely blind for so many to go down and there is the alternative to the repression and frustration they felt about the regimes in north africa and elsewhere which is the democratic awakening taking place which is one of the ways to defeat al qaeda in the long run. >> to ask the prime minister that the president of pakistan suffering such a grievous loss of his wife

but somehow we have to help him to rid his governmental structure of those who are sympathetic to outside it or the taliban? i don't know how but perhaps the prime minister would note? >> he is right to put the question that it is a long-term commitment of this country and the united states to pakistan to convince them that together we will defeat the medicis to give the country some prospect i have no doubt that is the president's view as he suffered from terrorism himself and shows courage to death send the pakistani troops into the s.w.a.t. valley to defeat terrorism so they do need our help with a long-term commitment to deal with the issue together. >> concrete steps from the

u.k. government to take any propaganda campaign that seems to portray bin laden as a martyr? >> an extremely good point*. one of the key things about how the americans have behaved with respect to his burial and it was done in a proper muslim way will help in that regard but there is no magic button to push or a campaign to run. we all need to make sure that people understand the evil the man did and the pernicious ideology and lead to a complete dent end for a generation of muslim men and we can make the argument. >> there are relatively few new al qaeda the real difference between the taliban could be worth exploring will the prime

minister do more to urge americans over meaningful not conditional talks with the taliban? because you can fight and talk at the same time. >> i would make the point* while their differences clearly at the moment there are links in between and the taliban are not currency willing to make that break. it seems that is the key step to be taken when terms to make sure they can and the political dialogue. it is not acceptable to ask president karzai to have conversations even if they are still committed to violence and overgrowing the afghan constitution linked to a group of terrorist who have done so much damage

the. >> does the prime minister believe there is a great vindication and the speech that he gave with the discovery of bin laden in pakistan? >> i will not run away from the points i have made but i will repeat it is in our interest to work with democrats in pakistan so that all of that but then as the politicians who will do. >> apparently those around the world will will come the full criminal that has been brought to justice. and then one particular group. >> and this should bring out for the chamber one of the group said should be most

relieve their muslims all over the world because he killed them more almost more than any other faith and it is only a minority of a minority to back al qaeda. another group of people that followed the ideology to deal with both of those problems and it is remarkable how much common ground there has been on both sides today. >> how long? >> well my friend confer the government will take strong action against any islam is groups of individuals that use what has happened it to bin laden to perform jihad or other forms of violence? >> if we must combat not just by lead to extremism but extremism itself and there was a conveyor belt from some groups and

organizations taking people into a career of jihadism and we will never do with that unless we deal with the conveyor belt. >>

and ronald neumann.

>> the hearing will come to der. >> the hearing will come to order thank you for joining us today. by events that we had no way of predicting, thes issues that are in front of this committee at this point* in time are more compelling and melamed then they would have then anyway and they wear under any circumstance.rcu cahal we have them planning these hearings because julyth represents that criticalt moment when the president will be making importantt decisions about our policy in afghanistan.vi of for the obvious reasonsa and is a seminal moment has a deliberate about foreign policy and national-security interests. the decibels on a bin laden

is an event of enormous consequence. his wealth, iconic stature gained by multiple murders and terrorist tax going back through 1993, his ability to plot, organize come a directmo and motivates him and recruit to terrorist, all of those make him a unique threat to our country and allies.d his death deals the enormous blow to the al qaeda ability to operate. it does not end of the threat however.t is a major victory and a long campaign against terrorism waged by our intelligence agencies and military.o it brings us closer to thein

objective to dismantle and tragically nothing can erase the bitter memories of september 11, 2001 the haunted damages will we forever seared in our minds people jumping hand in hand to escape thee.th inferno and four upon floors successively falling on them sells enough clout of dustbut and destruction but we remember the heroism of america's finest of the police and firefighters and emergency workers who gave their lives. these images and thely realities that they mean today for 3,000 families and for millions of people around the world will never be forgotten, for anyone who has to balance america's rights that them remember the shameless cowardly attack out of nowhere that

that he laughed and bragged about it. in the wake of world war ii hard to believe one man's evilr aspirations could so occupy our resources and transform our lives. but he did. now they got he is dead. that death needs to be a lesson to all who embrace violence andmi anarchy the united states of america means what it says will be pledged to do whatever it takes to protect ourselvesver and to meet out justice to those who want to murder and maim. bin laden is dead but thed fight the hatred he tormented is not over.

with a consequence of the last 48 hours, it is important for us and this committee to think through and find answers to these questions. one of the reasons we are here this morning is tot examine how close on the modest death affects the conflict in afghanistan. the implications for thesit upcoming troop withdrawal and the strategy of our partnerships in the region. this hearing is the first in this series of six of those on the 14 hearings we held from the last congress from afghanistan and pakistan gave then the president of council of foreign o relations and a friend of the committee held money saying to the -- positions with

policy and planning in the u.s. coordinator of afghanistan joined by one of his successors who recently returned to princeton university woodrow wilson's go after serving the secretary clinton director of policy and planning. then may have a three-time ambassador ronald the men whosaho serves at the american academy of diplomacy and like his father, he served as our envoy to afghanistan 2005 through 2007 and recently returned from a t trip there. thank you for coming.ha we look forward to a vigorous discussion. quickly, i turn to my colleagues senator lugar. as meno and two months obama's will unveil his strategy for lowered drawing down forces so the afghans can assume a greatere responsibility for their country and future.ou our military is making

significant inroadsm particularly of and surgeons but we do expect a significant taliban counterattack to regain some of those areas. and those spreading into afghanistan even as three jive them from the base in the south. not only on the battlefield but again and again of our military leaders and civilian leaders have repeated the mantra there is no militarye victory to be had in afghanistan. if that is true rainy to fashion the politicale resolution out of these hearings -- ziering's i hope we can achieve discussion with our partners about how the war ends, what the

acceptable and statelessls like and what steps we need to take to get there. with the death of bin laden summer sure to ask why don't we pack up and leave afghanistan? it is more compelling we examine carefully what is at stake and what is legitimate and realistic and what is the real security challenge and how we achieve the interest of our country? what type of afghanistan too replay and to leave so we may actually achieve those objectives?e and how will the piece be achieved? efforts integration have had limited impact so far with reconciliation maybe more promising in ther long run but it will not be fast or a silver bullet and there maybe no grand bargain to be had for groups like the haqqani network although

one of the questions that looms in front of us is how, if at all is the deaths of three sen to zero hours affecting psat answer to those questions? some taliban appear to be willing to negotiate.to so the u.s. news to send a strong and consistentp message reason for a political solution led by d afghans it is difficult as an iraq but they have to make the hard choices to bringt stability to their own country.nd as we debate the 10 statese it is inevitable we need toso factor and what can we afford to do in light of budget constraints and realities?n >> we will spend $120 billion over of this

year and our decision over resource allocation and affect our global posture elsewhere. as recede today with a crying teacher with two nation and other countries. we have to ask if our strategy is sustainable. our military and civilian ist strategies need to support the afghanistan that is viable as we drive down the forces. we have to consider the regional context ever security the pakistan role and what the presence sayst about that to alliance and the prospects for peace in afghanistan. series of pakistan continue to threaten the prospects for peace in afghanistan. while we're working closely with our allies to address our common threads we must address the pakistani concerns of the end state in

afghanistan. this will take patience come a careful thinking, strategic decision making and a lot of patience and determination. i am confident we have the ability to achieve our goals to get where we need to get to. thank you for joiningm uso during this moment ando return the floor to use. >> and i thank you for holding a series of holdings on afghanistan and pakistan in the days ahead.mel bay are timely given they wereed greatly inspired by the intelligence professionals and our troops. this is an important achievement from practical value as it continues tonist

fight global stage terrorism globally. with the privilege of this series our offer for observations about the ongoing united states effort in afghanistan. first, we are spending enormous resources in a single country. the president's budget request fiscallei year 2012tha included more than $100 billion for afghanistan.r we have approximately 100,000 american troops in afghanistan and another 31,000 in the regionort supporting afghanistan operations. we. spent 9.2 billion dollars in 2010 and more than 10 billion this year just to train afghan security forces. , haes requested $13 billion forl training is in 2012 but

we were also having 5,000,003 year but with the assistance mechanisms at a time when most foreign assistance projects worldwide are being substantially cut. second, althoughcul threats of the national security emanate from the borders come in this may not be the most serious threats in the region and afghanistan may not beo the most likely source of the major terrorist attack.n last february homelandot security secretary napolitano and director of counterterrorism, they saidi that to yemen but american and resources devoted are at tiny fraction of those being spent and afghanistan.o further we know that the al qaeda has a far more significant presence in

pakistan. and and and the broad scope of our activities appear to be devoted to remaking the economic and political culture of that country. we should know by a now thati such grand nation-building missions are beyond our powers. this is not to say that we cannot make afghanistan moreide secure but the idea of thecien self-sufficient democratic nation that has now terrorists within thes borders and the government isy secure from tribals competition is highly unlikely. the mostu recent section on progress to security and afghanistan, indicatestes improvements in the afghan government have been inconclusive.

all of the ships to the counter insurgency strategy led by general petraeus feel that some gains in selected areas the prominent caveat and sprinkled across nearly allc statements by the obamarati administration is these gains are fragile and reversible. fourth part although thea alliance in significant anda appreciated the burden will fall on the united states. we have contributed 26.2 billion dollars to thea afghanistan national security forces 2002 through 2011. while the rest of the road donating through the afghan national security force fund hasce provided 2.6 billion dollars. united states provided 22.

$8 billion of nonmilitary assistance since 2002 while our partners have provided 4.2 billion. we are carrying the lion's sheriff economic and military burden in afghanistan and it is unlikely to change. the activities in connection with the civil war of libya furthero reduce the prospects for a significantly greater allied contributions and afghanistan. with these four observations is difficult but to conclude the expenditures represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets. the strategic interest are threats of numerous t locations. not just by terrorism but by debt, economictit competition, energy and food prices and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other

forces. some may argue that almost any expenditure or sacrifice in afghanistan is justified by a semblance of the country's connection to the september 11 attacks. as with al qaeda largely yay displaced from itsr leader and franchise from other locations, afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 american troops $100 billion per year costs given current fiscal restraints of the united states.ia the president must beo forthcoming on a definition of success in afghanistan based on the united states by two interest and a sober analysis of what is possible to achieve. said it would not be international securitye interest to have the taliban takeover the government or have afghanistan

reestablishedw as the terrorist safe haven. if he does not inhibition success of afghanistan to entail or how progress could be measured, then the outcome and afghanistan when the forces leave will be in perfect for the president has not defined which imperfections will be tolerable. there has been much discussionhmonoge about counter insurgencyt strategy and that it's been very littltle explanation about what metricacs must be achieved before the country is considered secure.ring with our last hearing july 2010 we must avoide defining success towards relative progress. . .for decades on security, employment, good governments, womens rights, other goals, expending billions of dollars each year without ever reaching a satisfying conclusion.

a definition of success must be accompanied by a plan for focusing resources on specific goals. we need to eliminate activities that are not intensic to the corps, and need to know which missions are indispensable to success. i am hoping the hearings will bring greater focus to the strategy in afghanistan and the context of the vital interest. i look forward to the discussion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator lugar. >> we're going to go in the order of haass, slaughter, ambassador neumann. as customary, we're happy to put

your entire testimony in the record. if read in full, we'd appreciate to have a chance to have a good dialogue. i failed to mention i will be going to afghanistan not this week, be the other after. and hope to be able to get a good take on president karzai and others on how that will affect their calculations as we go forward. mr. haass, welcome. dr. haass, i should say. honorable. >> thank you, senator. thank you. thanks for having me back here to discuss afghanistan and as has been the case whenever i testify here over the years, my statement and testimony reflect

my personal views and not those of the council on foreign relations. as you all know, much of the debate about afghanistan has focused on whether u.s. policy is likely to succeed with success losely defined as bringing about an afghan government that in several years time can hold off of the taliban with only a modest amount of ongoing american help. in theory least, several more years of intense u.s. military effort will provide the time and space required to train the afghan army and police and weaken the taliban so that the taliban will no longer constitute an overwhelming threat or decide to negotiate to end the conflict. let me say as directly as i can, i am deeply and profoundly skeptical the policy will work, given the nature of afghanistan and in particular, the weakness of the central institutions and the reality that pakistan will continue to provide a sanctuary

for the taliban. yes, u.s. forces are succeed at clearing and holding. but successful building by the end of 2014 is at best taliban. some will give up. most will not. afghanistan and military police forces will increase a number and improve in performance, but not as much as is needed. the bigger question that i'd like to talk about though is whether it is worth -- what we are doing is worth it even if we were to succeed. i would argue not. afghanistan over the years has evolved from a war of necessity into a war of choice. our interests there have become less than vital with the near elimination of al qaeda in afghanistan. afghanistan no longer represents the significant global terrorists threat, and certainly no more than several other countries, most notably pakistan in the region. secondly, there were and are

other policy options available to us, in particular, more narrow and limited terrorist strategy, coupled with a limited agree of nation or capacity building. the situation in afghanistan did not and does not warrant our becoming a protagonist in the civil war, the adoption of a counterinsurgency strategy, or the tripling of u.s. force levels to 100,000. afghanistan is not a major terrorists haven, as i said, and it should not be assumed it will become one, even if the taliban make end roads. it was and is an error to equate taliban return with al qaeda's return. if there is some renewed terrorist presence in afghanistan, we can and should respond to much as we do in yemen and somalia. the afghan pakistan is at the heart of the policy. there's no way i would argue the united states will be able to

persuade pakistan to become a full partner and stop providing the sanctuary, given islamabad's obsession with india and it's view of afghanistan as a critical source of strategic depth in it's having -- in it's struggle with india. even the solution to the kashmir solution would not change. there's no solution for kashmir in the time frame that would prove relevant. it's taking more resources of every sort than it warrants. $120 billion annual price tag, one out of every six or seven dollars the country now spends on defense is unjustifiable given the budget crisis that we face and the need for air and naval modernization. the history of the 21st century is far more likely to be determined in the land areas of borders of asia and pacific than it is on the planes and

mountains of afghanistan. we need to be better prepared for a number of future counterterrorist interventions elsewhere in the greater middle east and africa. we could also make sure we have adequate resources on the korean peninsula and iran. it's a strategic distraction. sure and simple. all of this is not an argument. but it is an argument for doing considerably less than we are doing by transitioning rapidly over the next year or year and a half to a relatively small, sustainable, strategically warranted deployment, one i would estimate to been the scale of 10,000 to 25,000 troops. the future troops should allow for continued terrorists, along the lines just carried out by u.s. special forces in afghanistan, and some training of afghan forces in both the

national and local level. reductions of the scale and the phasing out have a number of advantages, beginning with the fact that would save up to $75 billion a year, and hundreds of american lives and casualties. continuing what we are doing on the scale that we are doing will not necessarily achieve more than what is being suggested by what i am advocating, given afghanistan's history, leadership, demography, culture, geography, and neighborhood. even if substantial progress could be achieved, there's nothing to suggest the gains would be endure, strategy is about balancing means and ends, and the time has become to restore strategic perspective to what the united states does in afghanistan. let me if i can turn to a few minutes briefly to discussing pakistan. pakistan is more important than afghanistan, given it's population, it's arsenal of

nuclear weapons, the presence of large numbers of terrorists on it's territory, and the reality that what happens in pakistan will directly affect india. there is the view in the administration and beyond that the united states has to do a lot to stabilize afghanistan. less it become a staging ground for groups that would undermine pakistan. but it is pakistan that is providing the sanctuary and support to the afghan taliban who are the greatest threat to afghanistan's stability. so why the united states should be more concerned than pakistanis that afghanistan could one day endanger pakistan is not clear. it also exaggerating afghanistan's actual and potential influence over developments in pakistan. to be sure, pakistan is a weak state. but this weakness results far more from internal divisions and poor governance than anything else. if pakistan ever fails, it less

be because of insurgents coming across the border than from decay within. it is hard to imagine a more complicated bilateral relationship than one between washington and islamabad. it's about to become more complicated yet. pakistan is at most a limited partner. it is not an ally, and at times it is not even a partner. the united states should be generous in providing aide to pakistan only -- only so long as the aid is made conditional. we must accept no matter what the level of aid, there will always be differents to how the americans and afghanis see the world. let me suggest a guide to the u.s. policy. we should cooperate where and when we can, and act independently where and when we must. in the recent successful

operation that killed osama bin laden is a case in point. let me turn to the last set of questions. diplomacy. the growing interest and three particular ideas gaining currency. one is negotiations involving the government of afghanistan and taliban. second, negotiations involving india and pakistan, and directing the regional form. in the interest of time for now, let me just say i am quite skeptical about the possibility for diplomacy resolving the internal questions in afghanistan. i am even more kept call of the potential of diplomacy to resolve the differences between india and pakistan. but i do think there is reason to proceed with some sort of a regional form along the lines of the old six plus two forum that actually did contribute somewhat. in this context, i would also endorse talks in the united states and those willing to

engage. direct communication between the united states and taliban would be preferable to allowing even pakistan or the afghans government to act as our go between. i therefore support the decision of the secretary of state to develop the decisions in talking to the taliban. but the taliban need to understand that we will attack them if they associate with terrorists. and they will favor participation if they end with violence. whatever it is they do or don't do in pakistan or afghanistan, there is unlikely to be a rosy future for afghanistan any time soon. the most likely future of the next two years is some form of a messy stalemate. the afghanistan characterized by a mix of the government, strong local officials, and a taliban

presence supported out of pakistan that will be extensive in must of the pashtun south and east of afghanistan. resolution by either military or diplomatic means is unlikely and continue constitute as a basis. walking away from afghanistan is not the answer. the country should scale back what we are doing and what we seek to accomplish. and aim for an afghanistan that is simply good enough in light of local realities, limited interest, and the broad range of domestic and global challenges now facing the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, dr. haass. very comprehensive and i think appropriately provocative and thoughtful as always. we look forward to following up. dr. slaughter. by the way, welcome back. i don't know if you know it, dr.

slaughter was an intern here in 1979. by persistence, but we welcome you back. you've come a long way. [inaudible remarks] >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. i want to start with three different and dramatic images that frame the story of afghanistan today. first think about our troops posted on remote and often barren outposts in the valleys and mountains working under fiercely difficult conditions to defeat and drive out the taliban. in the after math of osama bin laden's death yesterday, a former paratrooper wrote of his deployment, our job was to build a sustainable nation in a mad

wasteland. we did our duty. the second image is of the extraordinary operation carried out by the highly skilled and trained team of navy seals against osama bin laden's compound. they succeeded in a accomplishing a key part of the mission that our troops are in afghanistan to do, to destroy, integrate al qaeda. but that success did not follow from state building operations in afghanistan. indeed, it didn't even take place in afghanistan. but in pakistan. the third image is of young arabs in tunisia, e -- egypt, libya, and taking bullets to speak freely, and participate in deciding how they will be governed and hold their government accountable for the provisions of basic services and the possibility of a better life. the determination of those

protesters in their millions to demand far more, even in desperately poor and hidden countries is exactly the attitude of responsibility and self-reliance that we hope to see among the people of afghanistan, but too often do not. indeed, many reports from the field describe a culture of dependence, corruption, and inflated expectations. as we rephrase, it's worth bearing those three images in mind, the things that connect them and the disjunctures between them. we seek a secure, stable, and self-reliant afghanistan that does not provide sanctuary for al qaeda, and that is a crossroads for increasingly prosperous and secure region. i disagree that afghanistan is a strategic distraction. it's a strategic distraction only under the next attack.

moreover, we can't think about afghanistan separate from india and pakistan and the broader region which is an extremely important region going forward. a secure afghanistan means a country with low levels of violence that is defended and policed by it's own local, regional, and national forces. that means not only an end to open conflict between government and insurgents, but also the basic kind of everyday safety that allows citizens to go to work and send their children to school. establishing that kind of security in afghanistan requires not only building up afghan police and military forces, but also and crucially, creating the kinds of incentives for them to risk their lives for the sake of protecting their own people. it also means removing u.s. troops as focal points and targets for taliban attacks. attacks that end up alienating the very villagers that our

soldiers seek to protect and win over. it assumes that if we protect and serve the population of a village, they have incentives to give the information that we need to protect ourselves and drive out the enemy. in some cases for some periods of time, it's proved true. but it's a strategy that assumes the troops providing protection are there to stay for as long as it takes to erase the possibility of retaliation by the enemy that's been informed against. as long as villagers know we are going to leave some day as they will, and as long as they lack faith in our own government to protect themselves, the instincts will tell them to keep quiet. their incentives are to go with the winner, not to make us the winner. moreover, the only real long term security flows from competent and honest government. whether in a village in afghanistan or city neighborhoods in the united

states. real security in afghanistan can come only if the central government has the incentive to choose and keep capable and honest local, regional officials or a new constitution that allows for the election of those officials and mechanisms for cities to hold them directly accountable. so the key question going forward is how to align the afghan governments incentives with serving the interest of its people at every level. many different strategies has been tried, but if we are embarking on a public transition from this period forward, we can make clear from now on, we will be investing in winners. our development dollars, civilian assistance, and military advicing and support will flow to those villages, towns, cities, and providences that desperate the ability. when the competent is faced, we will shift resources elsewhere. the message at every turn must be that we have a strong interest in seeing afghans succeed in securing and

rebuilding their country, but not so strong it means we will do it in their stead. security is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. we also need stability. stability meaning previctimmability. real stability as chairman kerry started cannot be won by military force. it requires a settlement accepted by all sides to create a long term political equilibrium. the sooner we begin, the better. david milliband in a speech argued that political settlement is not part of the counter insurgency. it's the overarching framework in which it fits and operates. he recommends that western countries in afghanistan set out a unified and strong vision addressing the security situation, possible amendments

to or interpretations of the afghan constitution, basic human rights, and best model of governance for afghanistan. such a vision would provide a diplomatic benchmark against which all negotiating parties can begin to adjust their positions. i can see value in such a course, but my purpose today is not to outline a specific diplomatic strategy. however we get negotiations on a political settlement under way, however, there's a great advantage to actually beginning the political end game, rather than continually complimenting it. and that it will force multiple players to reveal their true preferences about what they will and will not accept. only with a sense of real red lines on all sides can a lasting deal be constructed. the death of osama bin laden creating a new opportunity to begin those associations. the united states is already made clear that his death is not the end of the war in afghanistan. but we should now mark this

moment as the beginning of the end. as a moment that allows us to pivot toward a comprehensive political settlement that will bring security and stability to afghanistan and greater security to pakistan while still allowing the u.s. to take whatever measures are necessary to protect ourselves against al qaeda. that settlement has to be durable and consistent enough with the basic rights and interest of all afghan citizens, sufficient to allow all countries, regional and international institutions, corporations, citizens to invest in afghanistan's economic and social capitol. the architects must pay equal protection -- equal attention to provisions that will provide a foundation for afghanistan's economic future for trade and investment, rather than foreign assistance. let me turn to that economic vision. the last thing that we seek is a self-reliant afghanistan. u.n. officials, ngo officials, people with long experience in

afghanistan often point out that it is impossible to build a capacity of a foreign government when the inflated salaries offer by our government, other governments, ngos, international institutions, drain local talent from local institutions. when afghan engineers make more as advisors to translators, it is small wonder that local and national government bureaucracies fall short. moreover, large sums of aid without accountability and being distributed too fast contribute to growing eruption. moving forward in afghanistan, we must be aware of the own inflationary footprint and the expectations of the afghan people. it is worth exploring how governments and other organizations would confirm to local conditions and pay scales as many of the soldiers often do. at the same time, we need to

focus on experts markets on farmers and entrepreneurs, and socially as well as economically profitable ways to exploit the minimal sector. the recent agreement by pakistan and india's commerce secretaries to improve trade ties across a wide range of sectors and newfound confidence in businessman that they can compete are signs after willingness to make aspirations of regional markets a reality. afghanistan's rich mineral resources are already attracting large scale investment. with china the winning bidder for a $3 billion to exploit the largest copper mine. the agreement commits china to build a power plant that could provide electric to most of kabul and build afghanistan's first railroad which will run to the chinese providence. afghanistan also has a new outlet to the see. thanks to 135 road conducted by india, connecting the iranian

port. afghanistan is increasingly pose to resume his historic and very lucrative position as trader cross roads of central and south asia. again, where as afghanistan itself may seem strategically less significant, afghanistan, pakistan, india, and the rest of central asia are absolutely essential for the u.s. and i would argue for the world going forward. the question for the united states is how a regional diplomatic agreement that would help address pakistan's chronic security concerns as the same time as it would engage key regional players in underwriting long term peace and stability in afghanistan can help build the faux foundations of regional economic and integration. before i conclude, it's worth pausing for a moment to think about what this debate is not about. it's not about finger pointing for past mistakes.

it's not about the performance of our troops which has often, superb. it's not about where the fight has been worth it. we have an overwhelming reason to ensure that afghanistan cannot again offer sanctuary to al qaeda and the fighting has brought us to the point where al qaeda is degraded. it's not about whether c.o.i.n. is right or wrong as a theory of how to fight, or if afghanistan can be governed. it's about getting where we are now and where we want to be. secure, self-reliant afghanistan. it means seizing the opportunity afforded by the death of osama bin laden to orchestration negotiations within afghanistan and broader regional economic and security agreement. in the meantime as the end game beginning, we must move as rapidly as possible to

supporting only the afghan sources and officials who take responsibility for their own security and development. that was after all the central premise of how we distributed funds under the marshal perhaps. in the end, it's a matter of aligning incentives. our military must work side by side with the development and diplomatic that focusing on building incentives for all of the relevant players, afghans, urban populations, afghan troops, pakistani government, the afghan and possible the pakistani taliban, india, china, russia, turkey, and others to act in ways that would advance the interest in ultimate goals. it's the job for the diplomat more than the military and development experts. it may seem like an impossible job. the sooner we begin it, the higher the chances of success. thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. slaughter.

ambassador neumann. >> thank you very much for inviting me to appear here. about a month after my last trip to afghanistan. i found that security has improved in some areas, as everyone is noting, heavy fighting is ahead of us. it took a long time to get in place the military and civilian forces decided on in 2009. longer than many had hoped, although many of those hopes were not very realistic. i think that lag between decision and action is now distorting the discussion of where we are. i believe that the thing to watch is what happens next year. if u.s. forces can transfer some of the difficult areas to afghans and the afghans can hold them, then transition will begin to have credibility. if not, the strategy will lose all credibility. i believe the forthcoming operations are much more