point of having a conclusion by them. i hope we would. it is a very serious issue for the country and i hope we would get to that point but again if you don't have a plan one-sided have the plan one side has a plan and the other side doesn't have a plan you can talk about what you are going to deal to come to a consensus on. >> we have votes. we have got to get to the floor. what i will tell you about that name is we are perfectly willing to stay here day and night to get the job done. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments former massachusetts governor mitt romney formerly big and his campaign for the republican nomination for president. and a little less than a half-hour, a discussion of

political uprisings in the arab world. after that, comments from the second-in-command in afghanistan, lieutenant general david rodriguez. >> today marks the first time when our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. several times today this has been referred to as an historic occasion. whether or not it will be an historic occasion is i think a subject for the judgment of history. >> this week are 25 years of televised coverage of the u.s. senate. on its first day in 1986 c-span2 is carried in a little more than 6.5 million homes. today it is available in over 89 million homes. watch that first day or any of the 21,000 hours of senate

coverage on line at the c-span video library. it is all searchable, shareable and free. the peabody award-winning c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> former massachusetts governor mitt romney began his campaign today. mr. romney ran into thousand eight with senator john mccain. from a farm in southeast dam sure, this is a little less than a half-hour. >> there are many people out there that we know and love so we appreciate you coming here and sharing this moment with us because i believe it is a very special moment, very significant moment for the country and for the history of this country. i have known mitt a long time. we have known each other since we were kids. we started dating in high school and we have been married for 42 years. a lot of you know the story.

[applause] we have five sons, five daughters-in-law and 16 grandchildren now. i have seen mitt in a lot of situations and some of the toughest moments of my life. as you all are aware with my diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. and i would not have made it and pull through without him. without his encouragement to keep me pushing and fighting. the same happened when i was diagnosed with breast cancer. he was there with me and ankara to me and gave me the strength to fight that disease as well. i have seen him in the untold situations in business and in the family, as a husband and in so many different situations and there is no one i would rather turn to when there is a crisis moment to please fix what is going on that is wrong. right now, america is broken. america needs a turnaround.

it needs someone that knows how to do it that has the confidence and the experience to do that. that is why i have all the confidence in the world that this man sitting next to me will be the next nominee for the republican party. [applause] and will be the next president of the united states. [cheering] >> what a day and what a woman. she is my champion in life, i will tell you that. what an extraordinary person. [applause] and this really is what the hampshire is all about, a day like this on a farm like this. this is what america is about as well, don't you think? oh gosh. thank you so much for opening your farm. how do you open a farm?

i see a lot of friends here. some of them have

those are not the sources of america's greatness. the true source of our greatness is america's self rule, government that answers to a free and independent people. we live in the most powerful nation that has ever existed and it all goes back to a few men and women who had the courage to stand and even to die for their belief in liberty and the equality of all humankind. because of their vision, the united states of america is not ruled by a monarchy or even controlled by an aristocracy. i guess those people in washington might act otherwise. we don't have a house of courts. we don't have a ruling class

that inherits their power. and by the way as the red sox like to remind the new york yankees there were where are no dynasties in america. [applause] who is it that rules this great nation? you do. every four years you decide who it is that is going to give the state state of the union address. who will set the course or the country? who will be the commander in chief? and what is true right here in new hampshire on this farm has always been true in america, though each of us comes from very different backgrounds, though each of us has chosen to walk a different path in life, we are united by one great overwhelming passion. we love america. we believe in america. [cheering]

today we are united not only by our faith and belief in america, we are also united by our concern for america. this country we love is in peril and that my friends is one reason why we are here today. a few years ago americans did something that was quite american in its nature to sort of thing we like to do. we gave someone new a chance to leave the country, someone we hadn't known for very long, somebody who didn't have a long record but someone have promised to lead us to a better place. at the time we did know what kind of president he would make. it was a moment of crisis for our economy and when barack obama came to office we wished him well and hoped hope for the best. now in the third year of his four-year term, we have more than small bits of promises to judge him by. barack obama has failed america.

[applause] when he took office, the economy was in recession and he made it worse and he made it last longer. three years later, over 60 million americans are out of work. they just quit looking for jobs. millions more are unemployed. three years later unemployment is still above 8% and that was the figure he said his stimulus would keep from happening. three years later, foreclosures are still at record levels. three years later, the prices of homes continue to fall. three years later, our national debt has grown nearly as much as our entire economy and families are buried under higher prices for food and higher prices for gasoline. it breaks my heart to see what is happening to this great country. these failing hopes they got president obama's own misery index.

it is never been higher and what is his answer? he says this. i am just getting started. no, mr. president you had your chance. we the people on this farm and citizens across the country are the ones who are just getting started. [applause] i visited with her family, kathy and dave tyler who live in a suburb of las vegas nevada. hugh no fine -- families just like them. they are in the early 40s. is a couple who work hard, sacrificed to buy a home in a good neighborhood. the sort of place where they wanted their daughter ally to grow up in but now that neighborhood is being crushed by this obama economy. first their neighbors started losing their jobs and then they lost their homes and all around the tyler's there are abandoned

homes and abandoned dreams. when the tyler's wake up in the morning and they get ally ready to go to school and then go to work and do everything they can to make it to the end of the month and hold their lives together, doesn't matter to them if they are republican or democrat, independent or libertarian. they are just americans and american family and across the richest and greatest country on earth, there are millions of american families just like the tyler's. folks who grew up believing that if they play by the rules, worked hard, they would have a chance to build a good life with steady work and always the possibility with a little harder work that they might be able to get ahead. in that america, you don't wonder if your children will have a better life. you know they will. hugh know it in the same way we know the sun is going to rise in the east on this great farm. the confidence in a better tomorrow defines us as american.

when generations of immigrants looked up and saw the statue of liberty for the first time, they surely have a lot of questions about the life that was before them but one thing they knew beyond any doubt and that is they were coming to a place where anything was possible, that is americans their children would have a better life. i believe in that america. i believe that you believe in that america. it is an america of freedom and opportunity, a nation where innovation and hard work come tell the most powerful economy in the world, land that is secured by the greatest military the world has ever seen and by friends and allies across the world who linked arms with us. president obama sees a different america. and he is taken has taken us in a different direction. a few minutes into office he traveled around the globe to apologize for americans. at a time of historic change in great opportunity the arab world he is hesitant and uncertain.

he hesitated to speak out for the dissidents in iran when his administration boasts his beating from behind in libya. he speaks with firmness and clarity however when it comes to a zero. he seems firmly and clearly determined to undermine our longtime friend and ally. he is treating israel the same way so many european countries have, with suspicion and distrust an assumption that israel somehow at fault. to his credit, the president ordered the raid that killed osama bin laden and in afghanistan this surge was right. but announcing a withdrawal date, that was wrong. the taliban may not have watches but they do have calendars. now here at home the president seems to take his inspiration not from the small towns abilities in new hampshire but from the capitals of europe with the economy in crisis and his answer was to borrow more money and throw it at washington bureaucrats and politicians just

like europe. instead of encouraging entrepreneurs and innovators and employers, he raises their taxes, piles on mounds of record-breaking bureaucracy and gives more power to union bosses instead of recognizing the rightful authority to solve their own problems. he seizes power from them and brands through disastrous national health care plan. this president's first answer to every problem is to take power from you and from your local government and from your state so that his so-called experts in washington can make decisions for you. and with each of those decisions, we lose more of our freedom. you and i understand that. we look at our country and we know in our hearts that things aren't right and they are not getting better. president obama's european answers are not the solution to america's challenges and in the campaign to come, the american

ideals of economic freedom and opportunity need a clear and unapologetic defense and i intend to make it because i have lived it. of fosco 27 years ago i left my job and went to join with friends in a small business. like many of you, it'd been a dream of mine to try and build a business from the ground up. we started in a little office a couple of hours from here and over the years we were able to grow from 10 employees 200th. my work led me to be deeply involved in helping other businesses from startups to large companies that were going through tough times. sometimes i was successful and we were able to help create jobs. other times i wasn't. i learned how america competes with other companies in other countries and what works in the real world and what doesn't.

i left that business in 1999 and opened the salt lake city olympics back on track. when those games were over he came back to massachusetts to serve as governor. now i had never heard -- held public office before but i went at it like iran businesses and like i ran the olympics. asks tough questions and take on the toughest problems for us because they will get worse in the future if you don't. when i took off as we headed nearly 3-dollar budget gap. my legislature was over 85% democrat. the expectation was that we would have to raise taxes but i refuse. i ordered instead a complete review of all state spending, made tough choices and balance the budget without raising taxes. that sends a message that business as usual was over and then over the next four years we consolidated agencies, we cut romance, we sold state property

and we cut taxes 19 times. [applause] i also found the state was giving over a billion dollars away and free health care. much of it to people who could have paid something you are just gaming the system. i took on this problem and hammered out a solution that took a bad situation and made it that are. it is not perfect but it was a state solution to our state's problem. [applause] at the end of the year, at the end of four years, it took over 800 vetoes but we balanced every budget, restored a 2 billion-dollar rainy day fund and kept her school's first among all 50 states and i am proud of that record.

[applause] all those experiences starting and running businesses for 25 years, turning around the olympics, governing a state helped shape who i am and how it is i leave. of course if i ran through a list of all my mistakes this afternoon and -- ann would find it hilarious and we would be here all night but i can tell you i worked from the successes and from the failures. turning something around, turning around a crisis takes experience and bold action and for millions of americans, the economy is in crisis today unless we change course and will be in crisis for all of us tomorrow. [applause]

did you know that government, federal state and local in the president obama has grown to consume almost 40% of our economy? we are only inches away from seeking to be a free economy. i will cap federal spending at 20% or less of the economy and finally, finally balance the budget. [cheering] my generation, your generation will pass the torch to the next generation, not a bill. i'm going to insist that washington learns how to respect the constitution including the 10th amendment. [applause] now we are going to return the authority to the states for dozens of government programs

and that will begin with a complete repeal of obamacare. [cheering] from my first day in office, my number one job will be to see that america once again is number one in job creation. [applause] you know if you want to create jobs it helps to have actually had a job. [cheers and applause] modernize regulations of bureaucracy and finally promote america's trade interest. it is time for a president who cares more about america's workers than he does about america's union bosses.

[cheers and applause] over the last 30 years or so i can tell you how many times i heard a situation is hopeless but i have never been good at listening to those people that abari's enjoyed proving them wrong. one of the lessons i learned from my dad. my father never graduated from college. he apprenticed as a lap and plaster carpenter and he was darned good at it. he learned how to take a whole handful of nails, put them in his mouth and then spit them out [laughter] on his honeymoon with my mom they drove across the country. he sold aluminum paint along the way to pay for gas and hotels. there were a lot of reasons that my father could have given up or set his sights lower but dad always believed in america and in that america the lapin plaster man could grow up and work his way to run a car

company called american motors and he could end up as governor of the very state where he once sold aluminum paint. for my dad, america was the land of opportunity where the circumstances of birth are no barrier to achieving one's dreams. small business and offered their -- entrepreneurs were respected and a good worker could always find a good job. the spirit of enterprise communication, pioneering and can do upheld our economy passed that of any nation on earth. i refuse to believe that america is just another place on the map with a flag. we stand for freedom and opportunity and hope. these last two years haven't been the best of times. but while we have lost a couple of years, we have not lost our way. the principles that made this nation a great and powerful leader of the world have not lost their meaning. they never will.

we know we can bring this country back. i am mitt romney. i believe in america and i'm running for president. [cheers and applause] [chanting] [cheers and applause] these are two of our grandsons. that is joseph and thomas and there is josh in the back there. hi josh. the families watching and cheering. you guys are the best. thank you so much. we love you. thank you.

[applause]

>> he was known in the day as -- although he regarded himself as this flattering and the. >> during his three terms as speaker of the house in the 1890s republican thomas reid change the power structure of the house. >> he was impugned as a tyrant because he overturned a long-standing custom in the house, the minority would be on equal parliamentary footing with the majority. >> sunday night james grant on his new biography of thomas reed. mr. speaker, on c-span's q&a. you can download this and other q&a podcast. one of her many signature interview programs on line at c-span.org.

>> today marks the first time when our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. >> several times a day this has been referred to as and historic occasion. whether or not it will be and historic occasion is i think a subject for the judgment of history. >> this week marks 25 years of televised coverage of the u.s. senate are going to first day in 1986 c-span2 was carrying a little more than 6.5 million homes. gudaitis available in over 89 million homes. >> now discussed on political

uprisings in the arab world. including yemen and syria. the center for a new american security host this hour-long panel. >> i am karen. i'm on the board here and spent years in washington as a diplomatic correspondent for "the wall street journal," and then became a bureaucrat for "the wall street journal" in charge of, like many with some business responsibility and retired as publisher of the journal in 2006 and a now writing a book about saudi arabia. so i am looking forward to

hearing the panel. i am going to make some brief introductions of the speakers and of the topics, and then lay the foundation on moderating some discussion. i know from audiences that you come to have the opportunity to ask questions of people like these and there is nothing worse than a moderator who doesn't know when to share and shut up. i am going to start by just mentioning the internet freedom study that nate mentioned because it does give a really good discussion of the issue of technology and the double-edged sword that it is and hopefully we will hear some more about that because one of the authors is on our panel. we have for truly i think genuine experts here this

morning in different areas. on my immediate right, collin kahl the deputy and assistant secretary of defense for the middle east and prior to that was a fellow here at the center and a teacher at georgetown although he tells me now he has only one job at the pentagon. he can't have a side job the way he did here. is he is an expert on counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, the causes and consequences of violent civil and ethnic conflict, so well-positioned to talk about the topic here of the middle east. on my left is dr. hamid who just flew in last night from doha. he works for brookings there are. he is an expert on islamic

political parties and democratic reform in the middle east, which he was studying long before the spring. on my far right is richard fontaine to as i mentioned is the author of the internet freedom study and has experience on the hill, five years as the is the foreign-policy adviser for senator mccain. ..

has a degree in middle eastern studies from the american university all over specifically in egypt after the revolution. i fink all of us have watched the administration be somewhat conflicted about how to respond to the advance in the middle east and we are to support stability, autocratic regimes and face the support democracy for which america stands. i've discussed conflicted precisely because not all of

middle eastern regimes while authoritarian are behind there are authoritarianism and clearly a great strategic importance of the country's new to the u.s.. so where do we draw the line is one of the things that can draw people out. terribly repressive regime and i would argue not strategically important to the u.s.. syria is in my view equally regime who but it's far more amenable to the u.s. interest because it serves in the region. so rather than fight libya and largely ignore syria, egypt and oprah's of ruler and was important to us but after some

hesitation we helped the east egyptians and saudi arabia which has an authoritarian that was smuggling regime is by far the most important country in the region to the u.s., and our president couldn't even bring himself to utter his name in the middle east speech, which i found quite interesting. "the wall street journal" for which no longer has any responsibility has laid out for a decade that the strategy in the middle east to be to protect and support our freedom and since the regime change with the enemy, so we can even agree who our friends and enemies are, and i won't go on about iran and

pakistan which are probably in many ways more important to less than anybody in the middle east accept saudi arabia. so with that backdrop, i'm going to start with to get you to lay out what all of the principles that the administration uses and one's ariel sharon visit us at the journal and said you ought to have your principles and policies out of these so clear than in essence a woman with a recipe box and go in and take out the card. i would like to know what the principles are on their recipe card in the pentagon balks. >> it's like the joint staff wanting to have their plan on the shelf. i should say after my credibility by saying [inaudible]

around the middle east the pentagon and the middle east is defined a little bit differently across the government and in the pentagon my office covers the region from egypt up through israel and to iraq, iran down the peninsula so don't deal with at cannes and pakistan. i just had those ec countries in between. [laughter] i will focus on that. they look in possible and retrospectively inevitable and i think that has never been truer than in the middle east. i know this panel is about the internet. i'm not going to talk about the internet. the one thing i will say is i don't think the internet caused any of this. the internet had underlying structural tensions in this part of the world, political and economic in terms of legitimate development the relationships between other parts of the world could have been around for decades and have now been

unleashed. secretary gates for another 30 days or so has led to the shifting of the tectonic plates that has been frozen in place for six decades and unleashing a political earthquake and tsunami change about the region. we don't know whether where it is going to go and we all need to be humble about that. but let me just say a couple of words about fact as we go into this we don't go into it as realist or pie in the sky idealist that we set out our challenges in the region and a set of opportunities in the region that emerge from the era of the spring what ever you want to call that and i would say we tend to think of these in terms of challenges and opportunities. that's one of the ways how this will affect our relationship and cooperation with so many countries in the world to include our partners. i think if you look at countries that are democratizing and governments that are going to be more responsive to the political

will and that is true of the democracy in egypt and tunisia but also of the government that survives the democratic unrest they also have to be more responsive to the street. there are some possibilities this will complicate our cooperation with the countries. we very much had the cooperation with specific governments and sometimes specific leaders and actors to bring new on the certainty in our relationship. at the same time, i think that one of the opportunities for this chain of events represents the ability to build a more lasting and enduring relationship with countries that closely align with our dahlias, so relationships are not determined simply buy a set of ki ties with the leaders that are deeper and across the region. so in the near term it's going to create tension frankly in some places but in the long term it's ultimately in the u.s. interest. a second fact is the extremist doctorate and on the other hand

in countries we are seeing today in yen in the perfect opportunity for violent extremist and the hon to govern this piece is we're seeing al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and more terrain in yemen today than six months ago for the unrest but the more fundamental opportunity to the air of this brings pos is fundamentally destroyed al qaeda narrative about the pathway for change in this part of the world. i write thomas friedman pointed to the irony of the fact that osama bin laden spent his last days watching that the egyptian people do what he and al-zawahiri could never accomplish and that is the mubarak government, the peaceful political change and the universal value as opposed to the values that are a thousand-years-old and aren't subscribed to by most is a huge rebuke to al qaeda and in the combination with bin laden's

death is a sign they are a very much on the decline. we have been very close in the outset that iran didn't cause any of this. secretary gates has said no country in the history of the world, not the iranians or anybody has had the ability to create this change in such a short period of time. we didn't start this and the iranians didn't start this. they are hoping to capitalize on this or that. now the supreme leader after the unrest trustees adis is inspired by the revolution but the revolutions are a repudiation of that as well and these weren't inspired by iran's physiology and are not on the streets pushing for an iranian theocracy. but i think ultimately while there may be additives in the short term we have to recognize that in the long term we this is of great work to the vantage in this part of the world if you allow people to get dignity in

the arab countries that are seen as legitimate they are able to exploit grievances in the aspirations for greater dignity on the air district would be marginalized. perhaps the new iraq will be of some sort of the iranian influence. its claim to stand up protest movements around the region with syria and denying the freedom that we saw expressed in the square. the next is the middle east peace process this created a lot of anxiety and egypt is to the degree that there is arab-israeli peace but egypt and jordan and in both places from an israeli perspective those are shifted because the unrest. on the other hand there's

opportunity for that peace and the peace between people as opposed to between leaders and the palestinian question whether obama encouraged the israelis to get out in front of the populace we've in the region this bring about israel but as elections start to take place israel will be an issue and the palestinians against israel the interest. it's a very complex mosaic. we basically packet in two ways. to articulate a common set of principles and identify three. we oppose violence in all circumstances government should not hurry to get the people. protests, protesters also have an obligation to not engage in violence. we support universal rights in every country without exception. as the president said in 2009 and again ten days ago those rights include freedom of

speech, the freedom to peacefully protest and the right to have access to information. third, we support political and economic responsive people in the region and it's our belief the status quo is gone. the status quo is not going to return. the status quo won't be sustainable and ultimately stable and that there's a real opportunity now to realign our country and values. that's the general, that's the top line message and we have been consistent about that. so we've had to adapt our policy and the specifics of the policy for the conditions of every country. it's not hypocrisy, it's not choosing values over interest. it's navigating a pragmatic way forward in each of the state's cognizant of the fact of different interests and different influences in different places. so in countries like you know, egypt and tunisia would have been forward leaning in supporting democracy and standing up and helping democracy in iraq and look

forward to a long-term partnership with them and if we are encouraging -- >> do you think iraq had any impact on the causes that made this happen? do you think iraq had any impact? >> i don't know because the distance was so great and the top thing with saddam hussein in 2003 got rid of a dictator. the bad news was it unleashed instabilities that left thousands of iraqi dead and send a message to the region that the democratization of the company by the religious uncertainty so we get to sort out of the iraq effect but without real litigating i would say moving forward the believe you do need to consolidate democracy in iraq and you need to consult with the long-term strategic partnership

between the united states and iraq for all of the reasons true six months ago and in the red spring. let me say just a few words and then i will shut up and let others talk about other spaces. in him and i think we are contacting al qaeda and the arabian peninsula and that country not becoming a completely full state or descending into the civil war. we have been very forward leaning and encouraging the president to live up to his commitment to step aside and working with the state's to try to make that happen. so it's been reassuring to the partners of the reasons we cooperate it's the underpinning of our strategic partnership, called for terrorism counter proliferation and positions and maritime security, all of these areas, all these arguments that cooperation six months ago but it's also articulate it to the partners in the gulf we had a common interest in stability and

that stability in the new environment requires progress towards political and economic reform. and that has been our message in all the countries in the gulf and particularly that's been our message with bader main which is not going to move back in a positive direction i hope that is probably going to have to navigate. and in the last thing on syria, the president again, and it's clear to note that when he said that the president can either lead or leave. if he doesn't lead the transition it doesn't look all that likely at the moment. you know, yesterday he announced that it's showing. if he doesn't if he doesn't allow when mr. gaidar is to come in in the general reform, then the alternative is clear. more pressure, more isolation and more demand. so, we have a general set of

principles and then we try to navigate our way through each of the specific circumstances and i would be happy to talk about any of these to you would like. thanks. >> can i just ask you quickly blood do you think of someone that's been studying this region and looking at the democratic impact, what do you think caused this tectonic shifting of the plates? what are the causes? is there any common cause? >> the arab spring was surprising but it actually wasn't. we've been meeting condoleezza and 04 and 05 to say the status quo was unattainable and would keep on repeating that and that is the line we heard from the middle east analysts for quite some time now and i think we just have to acknowledge the basic facts that hypocrisy doesn't last forever and i think that there was a sense in washington that these regimes

were doable. they were going to last somehow but they were somehow immune from the historical suite that we saw in other regions of the world. so, i mean, the factors were there. but i think had to happen was the spark and two nisha provided the initial spark that all the other basic factors were there. high levels of unemployment and underemployment, the fact that people were living under these dictatorship's early 50 years, this has been going on for such a long time now. and also, this is important because it is not just not a domestic policy, it lives were also angry that there are autocratic leaders were too progress or pro-israel and warrant reflecting their own preferences on the foreign policy so you put them all together and was just a matter of time.

>> the technology and the social media play? >> first others made this point, too, it's not that the new technologies or the internet caused a revolution, the people cause a revolution and the causes of why they wanted to have a revolution are some of the ones that was just talked about. they do matter with the matter in a way that's been different and what we've seen in the past with other communications and technologies and these matters in a couple of different ways of the thing striking about a series of political revolution has been the speed with which that has happened in one country, and people throughout the middle east have been able to see images and get information about what is happening in countries where previously there would have been much more limited. so there has been an educational informational process and a

politicizing affect. there's also been a growing sentiment among people in countries that their view which we have been an opposition was not the only one. they had a shared sense of opposition. the technology has been used quite obviously to organize protests on facebook and things like that and then there's been an interaction with satellite tv so in a place like yemen where few people have the internet but a lot of people watch satellite tv the images would have been around youtube video so there's been a kind of interaction there. but the other thing that i would point out is it describes the kind of space protesters side of the equation and there's the regime side of the equation, too push as been carefully trying to use the tools to do just the opposite which is to crack down on protesters. so, the facebook organized

protest indonesia and the tunisian government cracked the entire country in egypt infamously the regime pulled the plug on the internet but after that it had been using it to monitor people and in syria the concession of the protesters had been banned the are allowed to go back on line and there's a lot of suspicion that it could have been the best thing the regime could have invited because a lot of people who don't know how to use facebook in a secure fashion would go on line and the regime would have access to their friends and everything they are talking about and make it that much easier to crack down. so it's a contested state but those are things are some of the initial ways we can see how this had an overall effect on the political change. >> i hope you are right but it's a quite optimistic scenario that subsequently will be better off in the middle east because we will have more solid friendship

and not just what some dictator for a king. i would like to ask you to look ahead because it depends on how to turn this out other -- clearly you are right that delegitimized, but if people don't wind up with more dignity, which is the key word i think, and a better economic situation that i think it will be something else. >> let me just start off by may be reinforcing some of the things that my fellow panelists talked about. i.e. agreed with colin visa de al qaeda. i think al qaeda has been

weakened, and the arab spurring really was a lot of ways the demise of al qaeda and richard talks about something that's also important which is to talk about technology in the middle east which richard it does so in a new nuanced way in his report. that is part and parcel of the broad sphere that's been developing over the past ten years and marked lynch was with us for breakfast and is now on his way to egypt but nobody has been better at describing the kind of new public sphere than mark lynch himself, and you look at the ways in which not just satellite television but newspapers and later the internet has created a unified public sphere within the arabic speaking world. that is very much trippi and on the other hand the individual condition in each country differs greatly. lisa anderson as the president of the american university and

had a good article on the latest foreign affairs talking about the differences between the challenges that a state like libya with face and steve like egypt, talking about each of and to asia we spend just finally a lot of time worrying about the direction with which egypt will go but it has a state institution. libya doesn't even have that. not only did they inherited policies to the ottilie incipit my wife is anatolian but they did a horrible job of building the institutions during the colonial era in libya and then they followed by mo marra gaddafi who has had no interest in building the state institutions when we look at the individual challenges that a lot of the states are going to fees, egypt, which should worry tremendously because it has people pivotal in the art of speaking world and that is an easy case talking about the security sector reform and political institutions and making political institutions responsive to the public.

that's all good and that's all happy but in places like libya, the situation could be much more by year going forward, so i actually worry more about liddy of than the administration does. >> on a more pessimistic note -- >> even the phrase here in spring is a misnomer because that suggests flowers blossoming career momentum and that is certainly not what we are seeing right now. on to be worried 11th when mubarak steps down its one of the most beautiful things i've seen and remarkable to be there at that time. and on the fortunately though some of that euphoria was premature, and just a couple of months we've seen what happened. there was the hope leaders would use less force but in fact they are using more force and we are talking about will see a real lead the transition we are beyond that, syria has more than a thousand of its own citizens.

that is just a level that is remarkable, and you add that to libya, bahrain which is a close ally of ours and they are waging a war against their own people. so all of this suggests the are of spurring is going in a very troubling direction. and i think this is where the u.s. becomes more important because it has been spread throughout the region. we are talking about two countries with it's been a revolution out of 20. that is a pretty low percentage. so i think going forward with of the obama administration's rhetoric is greeted the u.s. is on the side of the freedom and democracy but in practice that is not what is happening. and if you look at the perspective from the arab world, they see them very differently than we see it come and the see us as being on the wrong side of history, and we have been behind even from my standpoint we have been behind the curve in nearly every single their country. we only support revolutions after the happen, not before

they happen and that is the true test. even to nisha, obama came out with great words supporting the aspirations only after the president had already left the country and was on a plane. that's not going to cut it. >> i want to mention the unmentionable country of saudi arabia because there are no institutions. >> the president made a very good speech when he talked about women's rights and freedom of worship and he didn't mention the word saudi arabia anywhere in that speech when of course the right of minorities saudi arabia is a country that doesn't much larger and the one thing about that kind going to pick a fight a little bit we have been hypocritical especially with respect to bahrain and it's not just us because we talk devotee democratizing influence of al jazeera and its arabic at least

to the great job in egypt largely pretty quiet, their coverage was that on bahrain and we were pretty supportive of the democracy movement in egypt but when saudi arabia and indeed in other countries along with other nations we were pretty quiet about that. i think that there are some good reasons for doing so in terms of the u.s. interest perhaps, but it's to talk about the iranian intervention in bahrain when you have the nation's occupying a militarily. >> to draw the protected did these things happen in the nasty authoritarian dictatorship but we are different. >> it includes morocco and jordan. >> we should take questions from some of those kings and queens here.

>> i see people standing but -- >> all right then. i'm going to ask. >> i couldn't do it. i'm going to add on to this twitter question which is how can the social net productivity provide post resolution guidance to emerging democracies i'd like to broaden that to what can the u.s. do to shape the advance you say that it's already going in the wrong direction. how much authority and influence do we have come and i realize that it varies from country to country. and should we use it or if we account to encourage bahrain are we only going to screw it up?

>> as they were saying before, the middle east has been and will continue to be attacked in complacent because we see that we support democracy and human rights everywhere. we applied inconsistently with leaders we say must go on the basis of the principal and others we say nothing about it. that is true and it's also going to be a fact of life. no superpower is going to apply that a foreign policy that is rooted only in the democracy and the human rights and its region but by the security and economic interest. so the question is how you balance the security and economic interest with promotion of democracy and the opportunity i think in the arabs during summer, fall whatever it may be we can align them better than in the past and it won't be true

for a free country because there's no change happening but in a country like egypt for a sample, in 2003 and in 2004 when the bush administration was passing decompressing the case for the reform that he egyptians would come and say you can either have the corps participate in the middle east peace process and work on the counterterrorism cooperation or you can give a hard time of reform. pick which one you want. if there is a space government there that we are actively supporting through the kind of things that some of which the administration talked about that if there is a trade framework that would move in that hopefully the europeans could become part of that could have some economic incentives for these kind of countries, and it will be moving in the same directional support for the dog sees that are also partners on these interests and that would be the best possible outcome. >> you are the islamist party expert here. how much should one warn about

the -- >> i think a lot of the coverage there was a sense that these revolutions that's not true. the only secular so far is people were not explicitly raising islamist slogans. the muslim brotherhood ordered its brothers in the square to not say anything remotely islamist. don't do any of that because they knew that that might provoke the arrest and also the regime. and now that they are looking to or three months into the post revolutionary era the muslim brotherhood is the single most powerful tool in egypt and i was just there two weeks ago and met with the top three leaders of the brotherhood a political party. they are pretty confident about the strength. that said, they are not trying to win a majority because they are worried that might worry people too much but they could win a plurality of the vote. i think we ought not to be as

worried about the brotherhood organization that has been long been part of the political process but overseeing that it's the islamist parties emerging really almost out of nowhere and you have a group that's trying to form political parties so they are going to enter the electoral ring so you add the muslim brotherhood through the parties and there's also one or two progress of islamist parties. altogether they could work 50% of the seats in parliament. again, i think a lot of the alarm that we have in washington is on found it because again, we are not as radical as we sometimes think they are and in some ways they reflect the sentiment. this is a conservative religious society and we have seen a number of polls the last couple of months where anywhere between 60 to 90% of the egyptians believed that the islamic law should be the name to the

command source of legislation were the only source of legislation. and no constituency for what we call the secularism in a place like egypt today, and even the word secular in arabic no one would actually call themselves that publicly. so i think we have to be realistic about where egypt is going, but i think that's why we have to engage in groups like the muslim brotherhood. internal dialogue with them. we've been afraid to even talk to them so now they might become the most powerful force in the parliament and we don't know who to talk to. that's troubling. >> the gentleman in the back over here. they are sending you a microphone. can you state your name and affiliation? >> peter willson.

it seems to me the revolution of egypt that we are going to inevitably now go through a very tough time through egypt and its evolution and israel. there's reports in today's financial times the national gas pipeline has been repaired and in the internal political reason isn't the resumption of the gas to israel. and what is the subject of the peace process to exist becomes an important feature of the political dialogue and debate inside egypt. >> we are doing a number of things to try to maintain a good

relationship with the political spectrum in egypt and also to facilitate the transition. the package that president obama announced within the international community to bring more to various frankly the next parliamentary election will say a monumental challenge and very difficult to live up to the expectations and aspirations of the people during the fall of mubarak. we are also working on our democracy assistance program to try to help as well as allies believe to mobilize and there will be a gradual process. the last thing we are trying to do is maintain a good relationship with the military which i think as a possibility of being a guardian for the democracy. what is interesting about the way that another three plays in the transition is it's played a buffer between the regime and the people and that a lot of

credibility with of the egyptian people and i think that the egyptian military contained a positive role moving forward and this gets to the question about israel look egypt and israel have had a war on peace. there's not a lot of love between the egyptian military and our military for example. the the egyptian military does have a similar interest in maintaining peace with israel but no interest in having age -- and the reason every year to maintain a positive relationship with israel in security assistance we provide which is conditioned upon maintaining the peace agreement with israel so the military in egypt is counter to some of these tendencies but certainly there's with the reconciliation agreement between hamas but if you are going to see any egyptian power that has to be more responsive to the fact that the difficulties in the relationship with israel,

and i've seen the reconciliation in iraq as throwing a bone to the street on the issues with israel won all the fundamental strategic question peace agreement is maintained at the highest level of government and in our interactions with the officials when i sat with them on a more than one occasion to include the revolution i think that the elite remain very important in the nejib can remain committed to the peace agreement. >> he's talking a lot of sense to but on the one hand it looks like institutions and politicians that are responsive to the people. and it's not just the extremist groups that are going to be using the conflict between israel and the palestinians to the favor. the people are have a genuine support for the palestinian people and palestinian state

would that's not anything that is to end up by al qaeda forces, that is genuine from the people. the institution that is the egyptian military fundamentally is conservative and then any big swings of the egyptians ought to be going forward. >> the gentleman here in the front. >> my name is chris with mission personnel. i wonder if we can just through the digital age perspective talk about what these things mean from a u.s. public diplomacy strategic perspective. should we only be relying on the viral spread of things for the digital age to help us spread and facility changes or do we need to return to a to misinformation agency? how we better strategically and

tactically use what we've got in front of us? and a comment from anyone. >> i think part of this goes back to the big intent is to try to change the narrative and the president has done that for the speech and the narrative of al qaeda and the one hand space aspirations it should be on the side of people serving their legitimate space aspirations as much as we can throw out that in the sense that the state department now for example has a party line spokesman and twitter feed and so forth that's a good but the board of governors is to be more. on the internet freedom site, the u.s. government now is spending $30 million a year not on the public diplomacy but on making the different platforms available and training people so

they can communicate among themselves and on percolating and about a day after the polls and having seen over the past few years various government agencies for i'm not sure the track record is all that great without ascending, would be a little hesitant to the bureaucratically reform so when it comes to all forms of social media and speeches and everything that we can push out as much as we can and part of this also is the revolving ability to do this to people and the countries themselves and ambassadors and embassy staff and the state department has a sort of opposite model in the military in that sense where the state department and everything has to be clear before you can see it in cairo and running around all over the place of the

state department is going to have to be more nimble and move more towards the military model on that one. >> the exchange of information available on the internet with young people even in saudi arabia. >> [inaudible] on down no matter what happened that the hierarchy was there. >> it would get somewhat more information their leaders anymore. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> this is becoming problematic because the brotherhood is exploring the possibility of forming the coalition in the group's not because they have an ideological and muslim brothers haven't got along in egypt but the brotherhood is a very pragmatic organization so it is a big set of improvements and allies with far-right groups that's what it will do. so why it's important to look at how we can we find ways to keep the brotherhood in a more central right area of the political spectrum from a u.s. perspective we don't have a lot

of power over that, but i do think that starting real substantive dialogue with muslim brotherhood leaders as soon as possible is crucial. we have to reach of to them and have a better understanding of where they are coming from, where their interests are, and that is going to hold down the road. and it will also get a degree of leverage with them. they do care about what the u.s. thinks about them. they are sensitive to international opinions. and that's why, you know, they have been careful about how to proceed with terms of winning a majority and use it today. so i think there is some opportunity there. if we are talking about the brotherhood versus al qaeda, thankfully that is still very much there. al qaeda and the brotherhood pretty much hate each other and i don't see that changing any time soon. so that's something good and that is why in some respects the brother who serves as a counterweight to some of the more extremist groups because if someone joins the muslim brotherhood we might not like

their ideology, but at least we are not going to be using violence pitted >> can i ask a follow-up question within the brotherhood it's not a unitary actor and we saw during the demonstrations emerge during the under activists and between the kind. can you talk about how we can engage different parts of the brotherhood were different factions within especially that may be more amenable to the outreach? >> of the brotherhood is a -- >> [inaudible] >> there's a kind of 50% islamic across the spectrum government where the fight among each other were bring the country in the way we don't want it to go. >> the brotherhood is a massive organization and it's in some ways just a giant bureaucracy of the sort. so there are different tendencies within the movement. and there is a division now between some of the muslim

brotherhood youth who are cooperating very closely with their liberal and secular counterparts. and the had a different kind of outlook, much more open, very much part of the social media atmosphere and there has been some talk of inspection from the brotherhood and some of these different view of how the organization should go. these are the kind of people that are ready to talk to americans and u.s. officials and, you know, again, we should be doing that and hearing what they have to say and see not how we support what they are doing but the u.n. general how we find a way to support the egypt because right now used were excellent at bringing down the regime and much less effective in the post revolutionary era where they were relatively weak force and having trouble organizing. so, on your question about the

muslim brotherhood and islamists and whether they will take the foreign policy and all that i think what i would like to see is a kind of broad national government where you have the muslim brotherhood, and the rest is kind of coming together and finding ways to govern together. the last thing -- i don't think what egypt needs right now is a fully islamist government in to talk to the muslim brotherhood leaders they are aware that egypt isn't ready for that, the u.s. is not ready for that and that is going to cause a lot of alarm on the international stage, so i think that there is a realization on the brotherhood that's not the way to go. >> we have a question from the overflow room since they can't be here to raise their hand eyeglass on their behalf. can the panel discuss the response to the nato campaign,

and also the issue of the other reform movement in the arab world seeking military assistance. >> policy covert plans. [laughter] in a written format. >> [inaudible] >> i won't speak to the libya question and my portfolio i think that we have seen outreach by a lot of groups across the region but above one point that i would make is the overwhelming majority of the group across the region that are doing so peacefully, and they are not looking to us for a lot of materialistic things they're looking for political support, for symbolic support. we are doing our best to do that

diplomatically. i don't know how the arab spurring or higher awakening or whatever you want to call within the fall or the winter whatever way it is going to go, but the violence in the equation here has largely been initiated by the regime in this equation. it's one of the reasons why i think the violence in the movement could be in trouble because they have been violently resisting and now we see opportunity to work and that could be a pretty close model. >> the levels in libya had been on the ground and spent a lot of time with them but you read a lot of their accounts and agreed journalists on the ground like a partner in crime over there the revolution that is taking place that's expected from him on state actor on the battlefield trying to learn of the biggest

decisions in the equipment or fancy weaponry but really in terms of learning how to fight cohesively on the battlefield we are starting to see an evolution and the perspective of somebody that studies these things but i hesitate to speak extensively on that subject without being able to see more on the ground. >> i have a question about whether or not, you're talking a lot about of power and if we see a sort of palestinian nonviolent i'm wondering what is your advice to the panel, the u.s. has to respond because there's one thing to respond between verses syria verses libya but if there's a conflict it response

on some of violence, you know, then that could be very interesting for the region. [inaudible] to >> the u.s. is going to be in a very difficult position come autumn and the palestinians will take their case to the u.n. to seek recognition of the state's, and the rest of the world is going to be supporting them in that to different degrees and presumably we will as said in a recent speech. and this fits into a broad question of if there is a full movement that emerges in the palestinian territory how are we going to react and he made a very interesting point about that. that is going to be one of any good will that we are going to

bring down because of our response to the arab spring will lose 100 per cent of that if we are seeing with israel against the non-violent palestinian movement. i don't know how you square that circle and i guess i would be interested to hear what colin thinks of this about -- [laughter] >> speaking for the administration -- [laughter] >> does anybody have a third real. [laughter] i can grab onto. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i think of what we see is in the fall [inaudible] i'm not sure i think the clock, there's the near-term clock and the long term glock and that you

are going to see the palestinian drive in the general assembly in the fall. i think the president has made clear if we want that outcome we see that as something to emerge from the negotiation of the party not being imposed by the international community through the u.n.. i don't know, you know, there's obviously the debate about whether the president leaning forward on seating some of the principles we all knew created in washington last week that there's a lot of in those statements, too of the two states would be 67. and that would look weak interpreting that but i don't know whether we will have enough on the international community which there should be that the negotiated outcome imposed or how the palestinians would but i think it will create a challenge for the government.

the longer-term challenge is the demographic one. [inaudible] and asked to vote. the response to that is no, and we are going to drift towards a state viewed as undemocratic by a number of states around the world in which case the zionist dream of a space and jewish israel goes away so that is a demographic reality that's coming down. it's for that reason the president did lean forward and it took both sides. there are those outcomes are suboptimal and i will return to the point at the outset which is one of the good things of the eda spring is it's not about us and it's not about israel but it

will become, at least in part about israel wants elections start happening in these places and it will be partly about israel as to divert attention to not pose that so long and syria and i think israel has an interest in getting out ahead of that >> can my push you on this comment for a second because this is from the senior obama officials it's not about them it's about us your support and many of these regimes with billions of dollars for five decades how was it not about us? it's almost the since we are pretending to be this innocent bystander watching this and supporting that for the arab people when we were never mutual in this and in fact fighting with the wrong side and it's been a perspective of our

people. >> who continue to -- >> pure is bahrain on the table right now wanting to negotiate with their own people. where is it going to be actively quietly doing something, overtly doing something or -- >> i've got it. [laughter] >> it's not about us. the people protesting in the streets aren't protesting about the relationship between the regime and the united states. and a way in which for example of violence in iraq was in response to our presence in iraq as well as secretary of divisions and other things but we were at the center of unrest and violence and the aftermath of saddam hussein.

we were not in the center, not at the center in any of these other places that the revolution or the unrest, the turmoil is driven by a popular response to a set of economic and political structural challenges and inequalities and justice perceived that has been around for decades and have now it's been a nonlinear shift in the environment. people said my gosh it could happen. and so, that we are relevant to the equation. our relationship to the regimes are relevant. it's not the driving factor which is why i think he tried to position ourselves and make clear the set of principles and with the narrative is and that is why the president spoke so eloquently about that ten days ago in bahrain. on march 12, today's before they

crossed into bahrain and that was interpreted that we were giving a green light for the saudi as to the contrary. we were there to push the national dialogue and did the government to move forward to the right and in fact leader the investor and merest affairs isn't going to get the national dialogue started and a violent set of protests providing the excuse or the rationale for the forces to coming in. during that initial period don't confuse being publicly quiet with behind the scenes of the government and the partners for the legitimate concerns about security and legitimate concerns about law and order and about iran in the circumstances here,

but there is ultimately no security solution. there's only the political and you have to get back to that. with a listing of the state emergency yesterday, and some of the other steps talked about, but may be getting back on the right track. but i will say the president has pretty strong words about bahrain and the speech. not that we've been quiet. it's just bezoar talks and questions and executing them in a pragmatic way. >> on that note, we are going to have to close unfortunately, pragmatically. so please come join me and thinking the panel. [applause] and i believe all of you have earned a copy is their right, mike? okay.

and when do they need to return? ten minutes. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> more from the forum hosted by the center for new americans activity with remarks by the second-in-command in afghanistan, lieutenant general david rodriguez. he spoke by videoconference for 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, -- [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen the most important work in any conference tend to happen between sessions and we appreciate by that standard this conference is so very successful but we your deeply honored to have with us today at least an avatar former

lt. general david rot rodriguez as the speaker of our annual conference. general rodriguez assumes command of the international security assistance for the joint command ijc in october 2009 and is joining today from fort lewis, washington, where he's a lieutenant general core get ready to assume operational responsibilities for the mission in afghanistan leader this year. ..

>> good morning, everybody. and john, thank you for the kind introduction and the invitation to speak before this distinguished audience. i apologize for not being there in person as you said it currently and that washington state enjoyed these clueless bookwork kentucky trading to prepare ichor and the afghan -- i'm sorry, the european rapid reaction corps for their upcoming deployment to afghanistan. and my friend, lieutenant general scott bradley will take my place. we have done this at brigade

commands, division command, and i feel sorry, but he keeps getting stuck with the mess that i leave but i know he'll do a great job. i'd also like to recognize members of the cf team. john kerry thank you for inviting me. you've been a practical server and commentator on this mission can see now cnas. afghanistan for pakistan in iraq for the marines and thanks to you also for your leadership. you clearly understand challenges we face in afghanistan. lieutenant general retired classmate and close friend, the first officer of the coalition command in afghanistan back in

2003. thank you for charging of course in afghanistan that has opened the door and courting myself. the former army ranger search of both iraq and afghanistan. you know the ground situation, what goes on there. it is great year here and in short the cnas team is definitely afghanistan strong. okay, this path goes this morning. i will give you a short overview of the operational plan from now until 2014 and discuss in more detail where we are currently in that plan. i'll tell you what i think is going well and what worries me. i went with a brief comment on what they think the future is regard to transition, driving down 2014 and beyond. so first, what does the campaign the click? well, our object has remained the same. to deny al qaeda sanctuaries and

prevent the taliban from retaking afghanistan. and by the way, the death of osama bin laden has not changed that ashamed and we have not seen any effect to his death on the ground to date in afghanistan. next slide, please. the unique foundation of this plan is threefold. on key areas, prioritization of multiple lines of operation, an approach that very much assembles with the activity. with regard to the focus on critical terrain, the population centers, commerce was a matter of necessity an operation that had never been lavishly resourced. i remind everyone to peek at troop deployment in the p. cost

of operations in afghanistan was two thirds of the troops deployed in iraq and 100 -- two thirds the cost of iraq operations for a country 1.5 times the size of iraq. now the effect this focus has had on key terrain was that we are largely able to focus the majority of coalition and international efforts really need them and when we need them. and when we get this, our resources are sufficient and i can't over emphasize what a idea that the vent to our effort. since the peace operations decade of the 1990s, we have long talked about the importance of the idea for, where there is no form a unity command and the progress in this regard has exceeded expectations. we have managed to take the afghan security forces to focus in the right place and we have

gained support of many of the civilian neck turns to direct their terrific people and programs where they need to hold key terrain that has been cleared. by making a big deal about key terrain can we have given specifics to anchor on. in this focus, we have made explicit the building block of the district. this is where the people see their government, and action or not in action. they are important as they party said. this does not apply to the province or kabul are not important, but this is a row insert the good of the challenges lined the village and the first line of assistance for the villagers is the different government. now, there are those who think we do too much when we focus on defense. but there is no real alternative for the reason i just said. this key terrain construct is

perfect? well, of course not, but nothing ever is. with regard to sequencing and prioritizing length of operation, the plaintiff made very explicit plans and attempted to correct some challenges from the past. some practices actually made the situation worse. as you know, we have incredible developments all over the place and want more children out of school at more reasonable, the security situation declaimed. then we have more troops and resources and cleared areas much more days, only to have to clear over and over again. now we are much better off. we spend the bulk of our military effort on to creating or insurgent infrastructures to include the leadership, but we also ensure the planning for the security and good governance begins early enough to be

inserted and follow on this unit conditions allow. we have made real progress with their civilian counterparts, both in the afghan government and international community to sequence and synchronize these efforts. thanks a lot. finally, underpinning the execution of this plan is the recognition that absence of sweeping political settlement, the best chance of stabilizing afghanistan is to mobilize people to demand the fulfillment of their modest requirements. now this is dependent on the connection of the good government to the reliable security forces and to the people. and when all three legs of that school for the trinity work together, from the bottom, with a little help from the top, we will squeeze out enough of the enemy of the afghan people to build sufficient stability for afghanistan in the future.

now you can see from the weight of the air is on the chart what people need from kabul is indeed minimal. their destiny to be a small reliable steady flow of funding for national to local levels to fund operating costs and minimal basic services. what this also means and execution of the plan is there a young commanders on the ground have to make decisions every day about how to allocate their precious resources of time and effort. they must ensure the proper weighting between taking the fight to the enemy and strengthening communities by building capacity in connection of the good government reliable security forces and to the people. this trinity result in a spiral of popular mobilization and it works. so how has the campaign unfolded and how will it unfold? in a moment, i will highlight

the gains we expect to achieve and i will tell you that unequivocally where we have focused our efforts in accordance with our plan, we have achieved progress every time. so if you ask me if i am hopeful that we can achieve sufficient security across the country, i am indeed. of course operational and tactical successes will take us only so far given the time constraints we believe we will be under. i will talk about more of this later. i do believe that given enough time, the tactical and ground up approach will prevail, just as it did in iran country a couple hundred years ago. now these next three slides show you the expected results of executing the plan. in other words, expanding the areas should be stable by winters and 2014.

and by 2014, we will have fully executed operational plan and all the places that matter most. next slide. now you can see where we want to be by spring of 2012. it is important to understand what the spring brings to us because it is after a violent season in the stomach of these through the fall and in the wintertime there is a huge opportunity to continue to go the afghan capacity while the violence tapers off a little bit. and you can see they are what we want to do a six in that area down into the central helmand river valley in kandahar in the south and southwest and it continues to build a security zone outside kabul to the east and to the south. next slide.

you can see on the next slide how that would expand over time. it is expanding everywhere throughout the country, expanding more and more to mark the afghan population and needy production centers and commerce routes. next slide. you can see in 2014 how it really starts to expand to other places the half and and us believe will create enough stability to stabilize the entire country of afghanistan and it does not have to be everywhere as you can be. you can see we will fight on in the east and frankly the east will be the toughest part of the tough neighborhood that will be afghanistan for a long time. i won't go in detail in the plan of 2014 right now if this is the purview of furniture commanders and could change. as we are all fond of saying come in the has about and nowhere is that more true than

in afghanistan, given the volatile region in which it resides. i will talk about where we are in operation only. and by the way, let me know hope is not a vested, popped in to senator has been a setback. the name of the plan was hope and i assure you that the afghans have seen the plan not because it is dependent on the lettuce prayer and hope, although my experiences that never. but because the plan will result in greater hope in the heads and hearts of the afghan people, hope for a better future that is more akin to what they observe happening in the rest of the world. and believe me, they do know what is going on outside the boundaries of afghanistan. now we started in the central helmand river valley, number 100 as it was the nexus of the narcotics industry that feels insurgency and the insurgency is

strongest hold. our pakistani part is called the taliban central. that was last year. this year after a very successful when you campaign, we see the central river valley near stable but the insurgents ability and capability drastically reduced and pushed a small pocket on the edges of the central helmand river valley and in the northern helmand river valley. this year our main effort is in kandahar and connect in kandahar and it's a magnet to the central helmand river valley, which is linked between one and two. and i will talk about carbonara as an example of what is happening in around kandahar as well as the central helmand valley.

it is outside of kandahar that has been a attack places the first in the coalition went in and state. in july 2009, are good and was a taliban stronghold and people could not move around without fear. in early january 2011, the district governor was killed. the district police chief was wounded by an ied so he couldn't continue to serve in his payment. there were no government officials present except the district governor and a tea maker and the police were not present among the people. the district center was described by many as jesse combat out post because all it did was defend itself. i was just a recently and the change has been incredible. there were more than 16 government employees working within the district governor.

there was a new police chief whose police force was visible, present among the people and responsive to those people. and there is a local sheriff that represents the people and holds their governments accountable to those people. and the locals on a friday afternoon afghan family time i routes enabled to pick nick temirkanov river valley. a significant change from 18 months ago. now the activities occurring are examples of what are happening across the country where we are focusing our efforts. kabul city, number three on the mount, home to one fifth of the afghan population is one of the safest places in afghanistan. the afghan security forces are in the league for security throughout the city, proving their afghan security part cursor up to the challenge of

increasing not only quantity, but quality. now we are continuing to expand the kabul security zone for the east in the south and in the east we have seen gains in discrete areas in jalalabad, kandahar which is four on the map as well as send word back, just south of kabul city. these contain the most difficult human terrain and many of you know, gc cannot just transferred authority for the region that the first division. where jc was able to do what dan is the ipod is truly incredible. the afghans the same you can carry 200 notes in one hand. i believe we are attempting to do just that and it's pretty remarkable. still we have a way to go in the east and nowhere will the afghan security forces be challenged

more. next slide. up in the north, just last week we lost an influential afghan leader, regional police chief general david as well as the provincial chief of police in several coalition force members. these are friends in the picture on the screen. our regional commander, marcus tonight was wounded and is recovering at home in germany and will return soon. we expect this kind of attacks to continue. the taliban cannot expect to regain territory. so right now they are attempting to degrade to trust the coalition and afghan sending each other through insider attacks as well as to intimidate the people in hopes of making them believe that their government cannot detect them.

but so far, the partnerships remain strong and in many places, the people are eyeing the fact that the government cannot protect them. and regional command north, determined team was back very publicly coming meeting with general present another afghan security force leadership two days after the her thick attack. in kandahar several weeks ago, after the same type of horrific attack, the very next day after the simultaneous won't roll in effect to the tax. , the residents resumed their normal activity. next slide. now, our security activities in the north have focused on the

kunduz carter, number five on your map. this area is an intensely populated section that includes two main commerce routes. we have focused our efforts on expanding a secure area around the intersection and increasing the freedom of movement in that area. number six on the map is also very important because that is the last place to be completed on the ring road. as a result of regional command west, spring operations are making progress there. we have paid significant security gains enough area that will allow this to be completed in the future. arrived, number seven on the map as a city largely free and ready to initiate the transition process their afghan leadership this summer. yes, there was an attack this

past week, but the afghan security forces did not allow the enemy to reach their intended target and this is a trend that we are seeing more in her across tree. the increasing desire and ability of the police and army to take their own security challenges, rendering the insurgent attacks increasingly enough that this. now last year was the implementation of a plan for synchronization and the neocons of understanding of the required approach. we have proven that where we, the coalition in the afghan, the coalition in the afghan, the coalition in the afghan, the coalition in the afghan. next slide. so where are we? progress in achieving our objectives, making afghanistan a place inhospitable to terrorists is indisputable there remains fragile. there is no doubt the afghan

security forces have grown in quantity and quality. growth remains and a schedule with more than 284,000 afghan security forces across the country. since 2009, there has been a 50% increase in the number of afghans security forces and today in key areas across the country, the vast majority of the afghan security forces are partnered closely with isaf and there is no doubt they can and will fight in their operational effectiveness and destroying the enemy and protect people. our partnership has given afghan leaders like general carini, chief of the general staff pictured on the mac side and his leaders at every level and his units at every level the courage to confidently use ghost beard he had been developed new ones.

next slide. that's general carini addressing some of his afghan soldiers. if you can see the look of confidence in his afghan soldiers icily tax across the country, you couldn't help but be impressed. and i always fan. next slide. there's also no doubt that the government presents physics and being. there is no doubt that afghanistan contains the required elements and irreversible progress. but if human capacity to meet the afghan needs, an immense source of income for natural resources in regional transit. afghan national security forces are on track to assume the lead and largely the right government initiatives in place.

i want to return for a moment to me first point on the subject. the single most encouraging factor throughout my time in afghanistan has been the human capacity of the afghan people. their resiliency after more than 30 years of conflict is remarkable. over the years, i have met many inspiring leaders in people. they are tough and determined and have a sense of humor and graciousness to those who respect them. i am not ashamed to say that i generally write and respect many afghan people. while we are not there to make friends, it's hard to believe the most important resources and a country, organization or nation had a sound in a country to which we have devoted many of our most precious resources. next slide. as is often the case, the

greatest strengths can quickly turn to weaknesses in the resilience of the people more to his survival attitude that is not healthy. the people have formed habits to keep them alive in the face of terror and this often means they won't stand against members of the taliban for whom they have very little affinity. now there were other things that worry me. i am concerned about a chart on that is not totally aligned with trying afghan capabilities. was so rapid can you please make mistakes or temporary relief caps. while not critical in and of themselves make the people's shaky confidence waver and their survival instincts rose to the forefront. now if this happens, the taliban can regain a foothold among a fearful population. i am also concerned about support for the insurgency that continues to flow mostly from the every species of pakistan.

the worse the problem becomes fair, the stronger we have to build the afghan national security forces and the communities people living. this may take more time than we have. finally, i am worried about the parochial interests of minority formally informed the leaders across afghanistan, whether they are representing their own families accumulation of wealth, there groups were in the morpheus ever shifting combination of interests have forsaken alienate the afghan citizen, this is unacceptable. the afghans together with the coalition have to start addressing these challenges were effectively. a corollary to that is we have not yet managed to strike the right balance between respecting afghan sovereignty and demanding adherence to the non-negotiable response abilities that company that poverty. essential among those responsibilities include factions to stop the leaders who

steal money, opportunity and respect from the afghan citizens. in my mind, absolutely paramount is the demand the afghan government stop formal and informal powerbrokers who were directly harming troopers. in further support of the enemy, they don't stop and we should do that through whatever means necessary. now i will talk recently about the major movements the future brings. no answers but a description of things were grappling with. transition. transition will be conditioned based progress with one caveat will recognize the court's afghan politics will sometimes put on the ground from time to time. the afghan leadership will have a need to balance across a victim powerbroker lines. the first tranche has been select it and these are the easy ones, promises and municipalities that have been in good shape for years.

transition tougher areas will involve thinning out of coalition forces from secure areas to be deployed. they started this top with operations to emphasize we will not choose transition. there is no faster way to dilute our efforts that we worked so hard to focus for the last several years and then do and continue to execute a plan that the afghans have developed with this is a natural outcome of the transition. the second tranche should be selected by afghan leadership in august and it is on track and it blew the plane to get the afghans in need for security by 2014 is achievable. i'm drawdown, jennifer truss calls himself a four-star action for this issue. therefore am not at liberty to discuss details and also they are not yet determined.

at my level, i am emphasizing to the field commanders we've got to push afghan partners to start reading more and more. we have to start taking more risks in this regard and have more than none. we know as the platoon and company level, the afghans are largely capable of conducting operations with the assistance could we will win out from the bottom-up, focusing on building headquarters and eventually leaving in place critical enablers such as medical evacuation, access to joint the facts and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets. finally, 314 and beyond. i spoke briefly about how i see the campaign unfolded from now until 2014. before 2014, we should have a strategic agreement in place that will offer a sharing to vote the afghan people in the

enemy. no other details need to be worked out, but it is critical we transition our relationship from one of wartime, expedia footing to one of normalization. next slide. now this about wraps it up. i have not discussed reintegration at the afghan local police programs posed accelerants and a part of growing confidence on the part of the afghan will. and now i am happy take questions on these topics with others who are interested in. thank you for coming today in thank you for your interest in afghanistan. >> thank you richard burr rodriquez. i will take the liberty of asking the first question i'm going to pick up just for you left out. you describe the class take counterinsurgency necessary but insufficient. can you talk to the

reconciliation reintegration efforts many people think are going to ultimately be decisive. >> yeah, i really focus my answer on reintegration. and where we have had success and where the afghan security forces and the afghan government has continued to grow in their capacity to lead their nation, where the afghan people have become mobilized because of improving security and improving government capacity, the afghan people are ready to reintegrate and the afghan foot soldiers have been a big part are ready to reintegrate and become part of the communities. that has occurred across the areas we've been successful in just under 2004 what programs and the same number are on the verge of entering the program.

so the success continues to grow in security and governance and develop it would have been more and more. as we continue to reintegrate more and more these foot soldiers into society, it's going to put a lot more pressure on the reconciliation efforts and also give us a better position from which to negotiate room. now, it is interesting when this was mentioned to president karzai, he is convinced if we can reintegrate all the local people, we won't have to be worried about reconciliation. again, that is opinion and we'll have to see how it goes in the future. it is a huge accelerants. and i started and continues to grow every month and we believe it will be huge accelerants are building momentum here and we have to be able to do that based on the growing security and governance that keeps improving throughout the country. thank you.

>> thank you, sir. other questions? writer in the blue shirt. he sat up and identify yourself. >> i'm jake filiberto, marina 2001 and iraq 2003. thank you for your service. i am a freelance pundit in a spirit a coalition called veterans for rethinking afghanistan. so i may be a little bit different. the question is i was in afghanistan a little bit ago when i talk to minister asked graham who is in charge of the taliban and reintegration program from the afghan side and the yediot not spoken with military commanders are state department officials, which is critical. have we made appropriate steps in your opinion to connect with them, work with them and partner from the afghan side, not just the military insurgent type. >> in response to your question

committee answer in the reintegration of the net is absolutely yes. we work every single day with the afghan reintegration leadership in kabul. we also work every day with our military part errors and afghan security partners at the provincial level, where they have a provincial reintegration council and we absolutely do that although we have been down. on the reintegration issue, i am not in charge of the reconciliation effort. you have to ask the state department and other leadership level, definitely. thank you. >> i'm going to pass on a question that has been treated. last year general mike flynn wrote a paper called intel, which is very critical of the intelligence system in afghanistan. in particular, the afghan forces and the afghan people need a number of sessions in the paper.

have any of those been implemented and are you seeing results from a different focus on intelligence clicks >> absolutely i see great results in that area. we built the whole igc around organization called the information dominant center that caught information across a broad spec to the things that are important to a counterinsurgency strategy and information needed to be able to adapt plans and operations to conditions on the ground. the depth and breadth of what is understood in the information dominant center that supports on the fire after it is truly incredible and i think if we brought mike flynn back there to look at that, he would be astounded at the incredible difference the situation provides us and provides the afghan leadership that enables a

more effective use of resources we have. thank you. >> i can also let the enemy is no general is on the ground with all these efforts here. >> thank you for your service in afghanistan. i'm time i turn national emergency. the question going to your assessment of the enemies both this season, and the brutality and campaign right now appears to be focusing on as many writers have offered to us from inside afghanistan and the folk scene on the confidence of the afghan people in their security forces and police forces. as you alluded to since january, there've been three prominent police chief killed by afghan

infiltrators. of course infiltration attack that was her school students as well as a couple others on recruiting stations. it's a timeline or tactic for insurgents, but there's a number of writers that say this is undermining the coalition strategy and is causing afghan people to question whether the security services can protect themselves, much less the afghans. what do you in your camassia's trajectory of this campaign of the taliban and how do you account -- the forces to be to protect themselves? >> again, first of all, that is going to be the exact tax the enemy takes because again they can't control and regain control to people they had before. they will continue to attack and

control the people, which is why they're going after leaders and national security forces and after the elders who are leading communities to a better future. we will have to lead our way through some tough challenges. the afghan national security forces have done very, very well and many of the situations and in other situations of course they need to do better. that is going to be what we all have to do together daring. government better control their people. now on the other thing that is important about this is to actually watch and see what goes on for those attacks have occurred in the real important part is how fast or how far does the afghan community returned to

the census normalcy. despite that has continued to respond that way. we are going to have to really focus our efforts to prevent these horrific attacks from ever changing the confidence and trust the afghan people have increasingly thrown in areas. >> my question has to do with the way things are evolving and how things are going to be different going forward. what kinds of different skill sets or roles of the afghan security forces be taking non-and if there are new responsibilities and skill sets needed, what kind of training do you envision taking place?

>> yes, as we look forward, this goes double take the longest to the afghan national security forces to develop a sophisticated command and control requirements, the ability to integrate intelligence very broad range of intelligence system, the ability to bring joint effects to support efforts. -- too bad i started and i will

take a little longer from observers that will be needed in the future. and again, that's why and how we will thin out our forces that will be taken away first to forces who were directly in the fight. temperature soldiers and police are directly in the fight will move this out first keep headquarters and skill sets i just discussed in the various little bit longer as we shall

doubt or capacity of the national security forces to properly secure their country. >> i've got one last question, which also was treated to us. general, can you talk to whether and how the taliban strategy is changed in the past year and whether you think those changes are permanent or temporary and reversible. >> the taliban strategy has changed for a couple reasons. one is they no longer control the support bases in the populations, the main one they had both an essential helmand river valley and kandahar city as well as many other examples. they are coming in without the huge support they had before. they have adjusted tactics like was mentioned earlier about focusing on things eliminating ability to control the afghan people. and those are the afghan

national security forces, afghan government and afghan leadership that is not the focus of targets. so the way they are going to purchase the shares just like we said thus far is going to go after sensational attacks and leadership in the half to go after the inside and the trust and confidence in the afghan national security forces and the isaf forces and they're going to try to shape the trust and confidence that i've been developing in the afghan people. >> sera, we're going to to lechee back for the responsibilities they are about to assume and were going to hand over your west point classmates comment dave barno who will talk more about the regional strategy. on behalf of everyone here for american security and frankly all of us in the united states, i'd like to thank you for the

sacrifices they are making on our behalf. >> thank you. [applause] >> now, a discussion of packets and, afghanistan, al qaeda and how taliban may be affected by the death of osama bin laden. and include former assistant secretary of defense commit in the west, who has traveled with u.s. troops in afghanistan. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> okay, here we go. tavernier may now? good morning. those of you going after coffee in the back and make your way back. those coming in, take your seats, please. last event before lunch. this is a panel that really needs to know which reduction if you don't know what the four distinguished individuals are up here with me are perhaps you are in are in the wrong bothering this morning. to the far right, lieutenant general retry or barno who is a senior fellow at cnas. in 2003 demanded 23,000 u.s. forces in afghanistan and from 2006 to 2010 served as director of the center. his time in kabul, which we've all had a close partnership is widely regarded as a gold standard in afghanistan.

to my immediate left, steve hall, a former boss of mine spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent and senior editor at the post. such an amazing poet there was really amazing and served as managing editor. nobody multitasked as he does. to my immediate right, and patterson served as our ambassador in islamabad in july 2007 throughout over 2010, prior to assignment in pakistan, served as the assistant secretary for the ino bureau as the department of state. the tireless work in pakistan a third relax of a next posting. last month president upon the united states ambassador to egypt. into the fire left, the west. where to begin with being. the most recent book is called the long war. rick strategy in the way of

afghanistan is also the author of seven books including the village she claims a portrait in one vietnamese hamlet that is a must-read for soldiers and marines. he served as secretary for international security affairs. when he is in afghanistan, as he is much of the time now, he's just one of the guys. on patrol he's right up at the lance corporal walking point. just a couple of toy landed and helmand just after he left. i asked what it was like having them around. without a pause, he said that guy has brass. we are going to forgo the usual opening statement to get right to discussion. we will take it open to questions. i'm going to skip to set up. accpac amount paid in nine years after 9/11. we all know the setup. we went to hear what these guys have to say. let's begin with the most significant development this year and for some years now in the broader fight against

terrorism and its impact on the future of al qaeda. let's put aside for a moment the al qaeda affiliate elsewhere and particularly in yemen on the wiki seems to be genuine danger expanding influence in the print because of the turmoil developed in that nation. and like to on packers and into a lesser extent afghanistan. with bin laden out, having spent much of its time since 9/11, the friction in the top think that the organization of the cia's campaign haven't eliminated the bubble commanders come with new offers to restrict the duopoly some allies from the afghan taliban exploring ever so haltingly the idea of peace talks with the government. if al qaeda is that forest? >> no, but the state centered question suggests that they have never known before a nap i challenge them substantially.

it was a core organization that has 20 plus years under the same until may. it is also a network of like-minded groups but occasionally collaborate with the series of franchises and diverse parts of the muslim world. it is also a kindness fundraising mechanism, a position in the minds of followers who may never meet an al qaeda leader. so in that way, but are the aspects of osama's disappearing. i think i would mention a couple of them. al qaeda was founded as an organization in a series of houses in universe these in 1998. it's had the same ever since. now test the new one. and the circumstances of the succession progress will be very difficult because everyone who is a contender isn't hating. you can't have a series of human resources interviews and write

out a job description that's going to have to be done under enormous pressure. i don't think anyone on the horizon can easily replace a symbolic role that bin laden held. and someone who narrated the war from a position of credibility among its followers and his credibility was booted in 9/11 to some extent. and he also had a hitch for building a strategy of bringing people to him. i don't see anyone who could carry out the kind of global symbolic role that he played. so why if al qaeda is valuable to those who take it on as a forest? the organization transfers tat takes and does a lot of things, but mainly it is useful because it helps raise funds and attract recruits.

in that sense, there's a brand that attracts a certain kind of young person. there is a question about al qaeda sprinting and its role in fund-raising and recruiting. with this brand ever more like martha stewart located as a single individual, or was it more like a smoosh the cool people wanted to be around in a certain violence? and a tuesday that will be able to watch the value that al qaeda creates for others over the next couple of years, the extent to which people adopt the terminology or the extent to which they run away because it's poisonous unlikely to get you on part. and i think you're going to see more disillusionment. two other quick points. al qaeda and south asia is blending increasingly with sections of important pakistan routed groups from the punjab. this is the most dangerous. i think the migration of

lashkar-e-taiba, asaba, individuals often from those groups coming up to the frontier, connecting with international trainers and volunteers, some of whom call themselves al qaeda and waged revolutionary violence to the state of afghanistan. whether al qaeda exists or continues to strengthen the organization and whether weekends and havoc in the region. one less reason why think it matters. >> there is an incipient process to determine whether sections of the taliban leadership, particularly for sure around with omar might be going to engage constructively in negotiations with the united states and parties to the conflict are not. in the united states has made quite clear that it would not consider such negotiations in a serious way unless at some stage

in a verifiable and meaningful way the taliban broke with al qaeda. so what does osama's death mean quite a bit as true as secretary defense gates said this week that mullah omar and osama bin laden did have a close personal relationship, the absence of which might create the taliban to create decisions that he did not take in earlier eras. mullah omar had a house that you may have visited the special forces after december 2001, that is, built for him in downtown kandahar. he's where personal allegiance to mullah omar when the taliban fell in 2001, iraqi police under construction in downtown kandahar had a sign that said something to the effect is coming soon, kandahar is shopping mall brought to you by mullah omar under construction. in 2002 that was the nature of their relationship to cover

business, fundraising and religion. however, mullah omar has had a need for virginity in circumstances where is much more rational to do so thin now and he is still to do it at every intersection. and by critical accounts of inter-taliban discussions about why this taliban has refused to break with al qaeda. the relationship with osama bin laden as a factor out of mullah omar's lips, but also has deep-seated theological direction and does pertain here. >> i want to come back to a couple things including the stew of other like minded groups. i will bring in ambassador patterson here and a little bit

towards the impact of all of this. in the reports that cns is voting today, let me quote a little bit from it. among the authors is general barno. it's deeply conflicted and pervasively anti-american is sometimes contrary to the u.s. interest. it's demonstrable that should heavily influenced to remain committed to the pakistan to the long-term. the most promising policy choice in a field littered poor options. do you agree with that offense meant? assuming you do, how should the obama in frustration pursue that commitment? what is the balance between embracing that the strategic partner and accountability and a host of issues, corruption, writes casas support for afghan surgeons.

the pentagon crafts in the relationship is cultivated with general kayani, including rascal and late-night cigar smoking. but those are fundamental differences not confronted enough. in other words, having a close relationship more than what the relationship actually delivered. last week's visit by secretary clinton fare that well. the pakistani military is more focused on a check team trainers and complementing offense and waziristan. what are the next steps that the administration faces on providing aid and security cooperation? how should washington reset the relationship impact and? >> let me talk about the overall national interest that pakistan. as steve pointed out, they have

a raging domestic insurgency and what is increasingly a witches brew of terrorist to threaten the states. they have enormous social and demographic challenges, perhaps more than any country on the planet and there on the client has to be the fifth was used in the road. we need to reflect on the long-term view of our relationship with pakistan. let me say that i think the report was excellent and have a lot of good ideas. pakistan is a countrywide with contradictions that simply tries americans to enormous frustration. though we have no choice but to continue on the path we're on, which is to engage with pakistan to try and make the civilian government stronger and the obama administration has doubled down on most of the assistance tripled in one year between the reimbursements in standard deleterious distance running about $2.5 billion a year. in my view, we had no choice but to continue those projects and

continue to engage the pakistani leadership. i would take issue with your statement for opposition to military relationship has not went through because i think what pakistan is again a country of immense frustration, they've also been our partner in the counterterrorism more than many unhealthy excesses. i'd like to make one final point about the way forward with pakistan because i think americans underestimate how much influence india has on pakistan and on its relationship with us in on its with afghanistan. it is hard to underestimate the economic cloud and particularly its international prestige of affected pakistan. one reason our relationship source of complex right now is the css having to run them over

for the prettier girl next door. so i would particularly endorse the last recommendation in the cnas report that we should rocher confidence building recommendations and confident building measures between pakistan and india because i think the benefits for the u.s. practice and relationship and frankly benefits for the region as a whole, both economically and politically is known. >> i do care what the elements of the view of the region that a closer u.s. relationship with india is seen as a threat in islamabad and vice versa? >> you've got to start somewhere. they start from the zero-sum give on this and holbrooke was eloquent when he would talk to leaders. but you have to start in my view with some of the smaller disputes. i understand i'm talking about the glacier right now.

there are a number of other issues. the economic good of the region are simply enormous. and the business communities in pakistan, which is the bright spot in pakistan should engage more actively on that because it is in everybody's interest. ..

alliance of the of pakistani and establishment still see extremist groups in afghanistan as part of the nation's strategic depth with regard to india and what role should others plea in the process specifically iran, china and india. >> that's a fundamental question and i spent a week in january and got to interact with many of the senior military intelligence officials as well as academics tribal areas a little bit. in one of the takeaways from that visit which is surprising is that it was clear that pakistan wants to see this conflict maxtor result and it's equally clear that they were extraordinarily concerned they would be left with a mess on their doorstep that would be a redheaded stepchild where they would have to care for for the next decade or more after the united states left so i think one of the important things the u.s. needs to do as soon as possible and president obama's speech next month in july is to

dispel some of the uncertainty about the future u.s. role in the region. i think one of the great tragedies in a sense in the last two years in terms of understanding with the u.s. is planning to do is perhaps misinterpreted or someone argued correctly interpreted. one line out of president obama's west point speech as the u.s. force would begin withdrawing from afghanistan in july, 2011. the was the only line remembered from that speech, did important speech, but the message in the region was the americans are leaving. the americans are living for the exit as all of us know everyone is spring loaded to expect the outcome any way because that's what history has told us. yet we still been very opaque about what our long-term goals are in the region and what we expect a long-term presence there's a one of the things we argue in this report we just released as well as december is the united states needs a long-term military presence in this part of the world that

sends an unmistakable message we are going to remain committed. right now pakistan is are hedging their bets they are always maintaining a plan b because history has told them that they need to make sure their best postured for the day after the americans are gone because that's going to come at some point in time and their geography is not going to change, there's always going to be afghanistan's meter indonesia's neighbor. they have to hedge against the prospect of us being there longer and i can first of all we need to dispel that notion that we do have an end game that's departing the region wholesale and that we have a plan to have presence there. the other regional players but again the lack of certainty about what the united states expects, where it's going, what it wants to do causes them to have hedging plans that work around our interest and finally against what we want to accomplish. that's the most important thing. >> in an environment where the levels will be headed down starting in july, how big are the u.s. presence?

does there seem to be post 2014? the strategic framework that is currently been negotiated between kabul lead deily to need to sort of spell out the necessary incentives in their view of to get both the taliban actors as well as the pakistani government to see that a u.s. presence is significant and enduring enough. what will that have to be? >> in december the number should be between 25,000 to 35,000 americans and that was premised on two things. one is that part of that or a substantial part of it would continue to have to fight the counterterrorism battle against al qaeda and its associated groups across the region, and he would need some significant u.s. special operations capable the to do that. another was premised on a continuing to have to fight the taliban. that might no longer be the case two or three or four years on the road. we hope that's the direction. so that could be a small u.s. force that the answer which

appears to be zero american troops is not the right answer, and we think that there is an opportunity here as the year continues to strike a bargain with the afghan government to actively wants americans to remain in afghanistan who is very concerned about what the impact is if the u.s. does leave and from both a security standpoint and economic standpoint very much wants to stay connected to some u.s. security powers. and our premise on this in one way is this is not about the island of afghanistan, it's about the region and that the u.s. has long term vital national security interests in this region that require at least a small u.s. military presence to protect those. i think it's important that we work hard this year to get that out there and the public square and negotiate some type effect the agreement in afghanistan to do that. that will have a calming effect on the region as a whole. >> with this drawdown coupled with some very tough to swallow

statistics that all of us know very well, 1500 americans now having died in afghanistan since we started the war a price tag this year that will exceed $113 billion plans to spend more than 100 billion next year on the presence in afghanistan. this has many people searching the sustainable mission that cost both in dollars and lives and to say we need to fight a smaller war but to cut back on the on successful missions of population protection and space nation building and shift to a smaller footprint nation on special operations raids and advising afghan security forces skeptical that the process of a peace deal with the taliban. tell us how to get to a smaller mission without seeing the hard-fought gains. if our military were engaged in the development but let's be honest to talk about a civilian search there hasn't been that many civilians proportionately

speaking sat down to the district level in afghanistan. so, if the military isn't giving it, who is? and if nobody is is it just focus on killing the bad guys and train the afghan security forces what is to ignore the country from slipping back to the old cycle that helped fuel the conflict in the first place? >> what do we care? i mean, i like the fact that this conference is called risk reward because when you are a country you have to begin to considered risk versus reward. the reason we tried nation-building in afghanistan was because of our hubris on the one hand and because we thought we were so rich we could do anything. and so we spent ten years with ninth century tribes on a bunch of rocks trying to set a social contract is the way we will do business as a military. our united states military years

ago said that they had a new doctrine and said from now on the soldiers and marines have to be nation builders as well as warriors and that is nuts because what was succeeded in doing in afghanistan and this isn't just karzai it's all the way down, we have created a culture of entitlement and came just what the general was saying he said every one of our commanders has to balance what he does for governance with security. why does he have to do that? why we have to undertake those missions? so we have driven the afghans after ten years to expect when we look at the americans' use the dollar sign and when we have $1.5 billion we call emergency response programs just the 65 battalions that means every battalion commander is walking around with millions of dollars he has to spend, so we have trained just like lyndon baines johnson believed you could have

a long party in great society and cause chaos by doing so we said we do everything for you. therefore if you get the risk/reward. the general is proposing that he has a plan for the next three and a half years, three and a half more years at $100 billion a year from 100,000, 80,000, can we do all that? sure, we can. the issue becomes risk reward do we want to do that? are there other strategies and i think that we will see interesting month next month when the president versus the amount of money we have and the treasurer and soldiers and marines and asks is this the only way to go, and the alternative i think is quite clear we bear a very heavy adviser force which is recommended, and i say that for two reasons. the taliban aren't that great a

track we are trying to keep them from taking over the country, fine. how do you take a free country? how do you take over the country? they had a lot of help from pakistan in terms of logistics. to dillinger in big city you don't go on a few motorcycle's you could be out in the area is forever but once you start moving you have to mass, and that means somebody has to provide you with many vehicles and a logistics system. i guarantee you the pakistanis are not going to do that. in fact, i think the pakistanis are doing as a great favor because the arms that the taliban have nickel lamb. they don't have anything that's serious and i am absolutely convinced that's because pakistanis somehow crammed down so they don't get them. let me give you an example. we have 60 blimps now over the outposts watching the area 24

hours a day. you can see them right up there, not any of them can be touched buy any taliban because they don't have the logistics base. the other thing we have is remarkable aerial surveillance i never believed i would see in my lifetime, and every single patrol you are out with their somebody up their watching. weekend and now ranks dramatically as the general was saying and leave behind some people who are the advisers to have these kind of equipment and let the afghans to their own fighting and their own civil war and you get to the risk reward are we taking more risk than last doing everything for them for the next three and a half years? yes you are taking a rest. but i think that the state of our own economy and having worn down our forests and the steady casualties we take i would argue for taking this risk and that is going in the forefront for

another three and a half years of this war coming and i do not believe the taliban would end up in control and afghanistan. but it's a risk that you're going to have to take. >> i would ask all of you this, how messy can afghanistan get without it fundamentally compromising the clear u.s. national security interest? general mcchrystal submitted his report in 2009 so if he defined the young state in afghanistan as one in which the insurgency no longer threatens the viability of the central state income. you heard division described by lt. general rodriguez embraced by general eikenberry and others in the u.s. government's that calls for very active start at the sub national level the

district delivery program the embassy of kabul have to give a call when the district disaster program and getting the ministry representatives down to district levels. what is -- what should that level be going forward and how mincy can we tolerate, and i would like to hear from the rest of you in terms of how mincy can afghanistan get with regard to trying to ensure that al qaeda doesn't come back and that it doesn't fundamentally destabilize pakistan. let me start with you. >> i will start with i used to go to northern kunar. we are of the now. we were posted. the fundamentally just pushed us out. so can you have a mess and still continue on? yes. our issue should have been do we

want transnational terrorists who can strike from afghanistan against other countries? and i don't believe that will occur. it's a risk but i don't believe it and you can have a mess in the countryside. yemen is a mess. pakistan is a mess. these insurgencies as far as i'm concerned as long as they aren't telling us. so, i would restrict the mentioned to are you telling me there is a threat such that used to exist in kandahar when mullah omar was planning everything no, i'm not giving any sanctuary like that than that's enough. >> al qaeda was 20, 30,000 u.s. forces and special operators at the cost of doing business in afghanistan is greater than the

fata they won't seek to come back in significant numbers. what did afghanistan look like and how did that impact the rational terrorism? >> let me first register my disagreement and the kind of resource trends in afghanistan, the size of american investments and the amount of money we spend has had an effect on every aspect of the afghan political economy and should be our goal to reduce the size of our presence and troops and the distorting effect we have on the political economy but to do it in a responsible way. i'm not suggesting this is quite what they were saying that it would be unwise i think to have a policy goal of inducing a civil war and the men and women who sacrificed from the united states military today.

so why yet transition? it should be the goal of the transition successfully, and as to in the state's yes i do think that is a vital u.s. interest. i think there are specifics that capacity regardless of whether or not we are successful in preventing a civil war or large great civil war in afghanistan during this transition that residual capacity would line up with u.s. interest. so i think one is the capacity to carry out counterterrorism action against the current international terrorists including such as the one carried out against the side of the mountain. that gives an afghanistan that can host bases and max capacity that is relevant to the centrist. i think there's a second that is a little more in direct but easy

enough for us to agree on which is something i hope pakistan increases thinking about and the next transition which is if afghanistan were to become a sanctuary for antipakistani islamist revolution, revolutionaries that exhilarated the potential of the pakistani taliban into a force that threatened the pakistani state, that would be disastrous for the united states because of the strategic asset the pakistanis hold and part of the problem thinking about how much you could imagine uncontested territory afghanistan becoming such even if the afghan government supported by the international community help don to cities and sort of mistakes

we is to visit. >> i would like to make a couple points. i disagree with mr. west i agree but over three and a half years in pakistan, i saw many threats, actually less against us and our allies, and i don't think there's any reason to believe that with the varying degrees that would move right back into afghanistan, so i think that would be the first issue. the second is the one that steve points out that this would be inherently destabilizing to pakistan. i think there's a mixed perception that pakistan wants the taliban back in power. nothing can be further from the truth. the one the taliban back because they have seen how the public stand can destabilize and hook up with them and this is a

two-way street. they don't want the northern alliance to align either, so they have very conflicted approach to afghanistan. and then finally, it is a degree of messiness or lack of american commitment in afghanistan. they would to a possibly perilous and extend. so there's a lot of things that could go wrong with pakistan from a messy situation given the strategic interests in pakistan i think it would be a very high risk to run. >> in terms of the afghan state that is not the total disengagement. let them do get out themselves, but it's something more sustainable than the scope of the signal point effort that is

being sort of a deployed if as significant parts of the country right now. >> that is going to be the challenge the next three and a half years is designing that structure in a way that gets you to in afghanistan but stable because in my view and i think each of the panelists in one way or another afghanistan in a sense is the keystone to the stability if you have an unstable afghanistan it is likely which starts bleeding into pakistan that would press on the subcontinent where we have the two nuclear-armed countries facing off with the each of the last 40 years this is an extraordinarily dangerous part of the world in afghanistan is going to, you know, make it much more dangerous place, so i think we are going to have to find a way in the next three and a half years to take our vast aid dollars that several of us have described and neck that down without collapsing the afghan economy which is very reliant upon right now and helping to design something that

gets to what some are calling afghan could lead off to a steady state afghanistan that stable. i hope it is seasoned by a small military presence and that has got a long-term commitment to think that is achievable but i'm not sure that we crystallized the realization we have to start designing that outcome. >> they are not going to do it for themselves. >> as i indicated i believe we would make progress. but until we see the afghans fighting the afghans, until we see them standing up for themselves, we just pushed back the tide and it's just a question of when that transition will start and i just like to see it start earlier. there may be a civil war over there i define it as a civil war right now going on in pakistan and afghanistan they've always wanted afghanistan.

all those things are going to go on the next ten, 20, 30 years. >> i was having a coffee yesterday with a state department representative who's just back on home leave and has been there for now almost 20 months. he was noting that this is after about four years of u.s. pushback on the counterinsurgency operations that began in the summer of 2008 that the police now it's taken three years and he believes it's going to take many more months of the continued international presence. how do you bring that about in a world where the troop levels are going to be fundamentally coming down, and you want to continue on the path of the stability,

but in most of the areas you start to see some real positive developments with the queen effort there seems to be in the words of general rodriguez and general petraeus and others for in this seems hard to imagine that you're going to be unable even at the end of this year where they're going to be able to take significant numbers and move them to the east to deal with the issues that are taking place elsewhere. so how do you square that? >> i would say it's exactly right that it's time to get the afghans deeper into this fight to get them informed with american and lasers and you have an enormously large afghan security force that's been built the last several years. the army is by almost all estimations an extraordinarily effective force by regional standards. it can, the soldiers are of that

tree inclined to fighting. one of my allied counterparts say that it's in their dna to be warriors. we've been very reluctant to let them be in the lead in these fights and i've heard anecdotally from friends in the region that the afghans are ready to do more than we are it's time to move forward i think. >> let's go back to you guys. there are folks with microphones walking around you want to raise your hand just keep the question of short in terms of a question please and you can address a specific member or the panel as a whole. >> ambassador patterson, you are involved in a what is the most successful effort the united states has done in colombia, spent a lot of time there and i was involved when you read the ambassador and there we've done that with no more than 800 guys on the ground and probably spent a total of about a month of what it cost in afghanistan and

obviously different places but i wonder if he might comment on the similarities or differences what we might learn of what we did successfully. islamic of whittier was a longstanding relationship over the many decades and the one of the key differences is the engagement in pakistan said the so-called lost generation of the military officers that have no contact with the united states and we are going to be paying that for years to come but it's in many respects an entirely different kind conflict because it wasn't fuelled by this religious in many cases in pakistan and then pakistan is a country that columbia is a country that has civilian institutions controlled by civilians for decades and didn't have the demographic problems

and pakistan conference those with a much easier environment in which to make progress. >> i'm struck when every time 2014 is mentioned in regard to the u.s. job i think we forget there's a presidential election that year. how will need to ending the mission their affect the international community's ability to ensure that they are [inaudible] than for those that are in favor of continued military presence how will that not be a casualty to the afghan politics? >> having been there for the first half in the presidential election in 2000 for which i think i could argue was the best

of the two we had so far. [laughter] a couple thoughts. number one, the constitution in afghanistan right now prevents the president from running a third term. president karzai was the interim president and afghanistan and serve a full five-year term and is now in the second five-year term. there's indications he's clear to serve a third five-year term. so, one of the things we are going to have to look at in that is investor crocker is going to have to be involved in his ensuring that there is the prospect of the constitutional succession in afghanistan that starts in 2014. how they come to the floor in the political where there's no political parties mix that problematic. i don't think that the nato transition which right now is scheduled to essentially concluded the end of 2014 there will be no military presence

after that, even nato is to the fact that they are going to have long-term commitments beyond that. so i don't think we should view that as a an end of game the west is no longer engaged, and one of the key tasks that as you suggest needs to occur before that transition gets to december 14 this to help actually set the conditions for a successful presidential election in 2014. i think we utterly failed to do that on the last presidential election and it's even viewed as part of the isf mission. i hope we won't make that mistake again. >> could i just add one thing? it's a good question because the political side no matter what the piece of troop withdrawal or the military strategy it's going to be vulnerable to capture by the sections by president karzai or his advisers who made this an

unconstitutional third term, and it's going to be a lot of pressure on the international community to stand firm around the principle that there should be a constitutional transition and to stand firm on behalf of the small but important and emerging source of constructive diverse political the activity in the country primarily in the parliament. the embassies in kabul that are a great job in stand debt to president karzai's efforts to keep the parliament from being seated but i'm not sure that anybody is paying much attention to that kind of struggle. it's often too easy to stay with the incumbent we know them to take a hard risks building some more sustainable left and politics. we talk about switzerland to recognize that there are enormously diverse members of credible afghan leaders who want to participate in the peaceful constructive politics and it