settled with the government under forfeiture agreement that the latter to keep four and a half. she still is not reached a settlement with the bankruptcy trustee. so how much of that she will be allowed to keep when she's reached a settlement with the bankruptcy court we don't know yet. and she doesn't know either. yes, i do think if madoff had been able to weather the storm, he would still be going strong. i really do believe it. he was already dialing has returned down by june of 2008 he was only paying 4%. he would be paying 8% and a half now maybe. now, 75 basis point to be paying very little, but more that you could get in the money market fund and you'd be happy to have it, wouldn't you? ..

[inaudible conversations] now one book tv paul lubber and vernon talk about david petraeus' military career and his impact on the war and iraq and afghanistan. general petraeus gave the authors full access to him and his team for the book. this is about an hour.

>> good evening. i am proud lee gramm co-owner of politics and prose along with my wife and on behalf of the entire staff live like to welcome you here. before turning to our guest authors, i'd just like to say a word about an important event coming up this april. it's being called world book might come and it's an ambitious attempt to hand out 1 million free books around of the united states. you can read about how this amazing effort is being organized and synnott to get involved yourself at us.worldbooknight.org. i mention this this evening because the deadline to sign of this tonight so there is still time after this event. and now, a word about our guests this evening, paula broadwell

and vernon loeb in their book all in the education of general david petraeus. petraeus of course has become the most prominent u.s. military general since world war ii and while he's already been a subject of several books, paulen was given unusual access to him and his brawl story up to date. as paula writes early in the book one of petraeus' most important mentors general jack dolph and talked to petraeus about the concept of what he called the big m that stood for individual mystique or mythology. the idea as explained is the troops need to be able to make their commanders bigger than they are coming to magnify them. he had his pistols and grenades, grant his cigars.

petraeus stood out as the epitome of the soldier scholar. intellectually, he is famous for being the lead author of the revised doctrine on counterinsurgency warfare. on the battlefield he is credited with turning things around in iraq following president bush's decision at the end of 2006 to surge u.s. forces and he's faced a similar challenge in afghanistan during the years command between the middle of 2010 and 2011. petraeus time in afghanistan is the focus of paul's book although the book has a broad sweep, paula incorporates lots of biographical information about petraeus in an effort to examine what has made him so effective and influential a leader. in fact the book grew out of the pursuit of the ph.d. in public policy which involved a case

study of petraeus as an example of transformational leadership and organizational innovation. as a graduate of west point and army reserve officer, paulen as the army from the inside. and in her book she takes readers into reading rooms and command posts on to training sites and battlefields. and she was granted a number of opportunities to travel with petraeus and even to jog with him which as anyone that has tried that knows that it probably deserves a medal in and of itself. petraeus is notorious for the intensity with which he works out and it's the same intensity that he applies to just about everything that he does. i might add paula is no athletics lacquer. she is a runner and ranked number one in overall fitness and her class at west point.

paul is donating 20% of the proceeds of the book to the team red white and blue, an organization that works with wounded veterans using physical fitness to help them find their new normal. apollo was helped in the writing of her book by a very talented colleague of mine at the "washington post," vernon loeb, who has lots of experience himself covering the military and intelligence world is now the post metropolitan editor. paul plans to speak for about 20 or 40 minutes, and then she will take questions. if you have a question, please remember to stand up and use the microphone right here in the center of the room. afterwards, paula will be happy to stay and sign books. so please come silence your cell phones and join me in welcoming paula broadwell. [applause]

before we get started i would like to see how many veterans we have in the room so he knows when facing. first of all thank you for all of your service and we might have a few folks that belonged to team red white and blue as well. are there any folks from the central support organization? okay. great, thanks for coming. its very important for me to ticket advantage of the national media platform i have right now that became a best seller this week which is pretty exciting. "new york times" best seller and number 13 overall and for somebody that doesn't like to write that much its very humbling but i have to give credit to my writing partner for helping us get to this point. i felt it was important to do something consequential with the attention that the media is bringing to the book and i want to call americans to go all and as well to support as they come back from these theaters. we owe it to them and letting it

is our turn. i'd like to tell you a little bit about how i came to write the book and then we will bring up some characters that are actually in the book and i will talk about their adventures and i'd like to share some stories about general david petraeus and his development. can everybody hear okay in the back? in 2006 general david petraeus was the commander of fort leavenworth helping to write the counter insurgency field manual. i should say he was overseeing the writing in fact he edited 30 times the first chapter so he liked to pay attention to detail. but he came to harvard university where i was a graduate student and wanted to speak about the merits of counterinsurgency approach to fighting the iraq war which we were losing at the time and he invited a group of veterans of young students come soldiers, scholars of the will to meet with him after his presentation to the larger student body, and i went up to him and said i'm writing my fees' is negotiating and i think it could help your

team win and you should read it and he was kind enough to indulge me and take the paper and give me his business card and as he does with a lot of young soldiers dollars he is very open-minded about taking ideas from anyone and everyone and uses what he calls and what has now been known as direct telescoping to reach out to those in different sectors and fields to gather ideas so we kept in touch for a couple of years and i was still a graduate student. two years later i reached out to him and asked if he would speak to a group of students at harvard who were trying to find ways to galvanize greater cooperation among the intelligence community, the military and other national security organizations, but we has made great field officers if you will were frustrated sitting of the lack of cooperation so he agreed to a video teleconference from baghdadi and this is after the surge started to achieve success in iraq and he opened his presentation with a quote from a roman philosopher 3:00 is

what happens when preservation meets opportunity coming and i feel like that has been exemplary of his life and since this book it captures the feeling of how i got this opportunity to write the book and i will go into that a little bit more in a bit. so, fast-forward again. the surge as we all know was instrumental and dug may argue a little bit otherwise would it complement of i think the iraqi is frustration with insurgency in iraq, and basically the tide was turned and we were able to start to draw the force is down and petraeus came back to centcom in 2008 and i was intrigued by how this individual galvanized organizational transformation in the army and shaped this new doctrine which is kind of old doctrine repackaged but she'd the organization of the units going to war and so forth and i was

looking at this from a management perspective how does an insider affect organizational transformation and i asked him if i could use him as a case study in my doctoral dissertation and he agreed so i began to interview him for approximately a year and a half and had the chance to go for a run and i asked if i could interview him on the run and this is a test in the preface of the books it basically shows why i gained a report with him i could keep up with him and end up getting down to a six minute page. needless to say i didn't transcribe that interview it didn't turn out as heavy breathing. [laughter] so we continued that sort of e-mail correspondence and i was writing and incorporating his thoughts and i was able to take a vantage of my chyba if you will, the military and my classmates at west point four of

whom were his aides throughout his career and several others had been in my company at west point for example and were great informant's needless to say but they trusted me so i was able to get great access and i got to know his family and his mentors and they shared correspondence he had exchanged with them over three or four decades so i could see the lieutenant it general petraeus written to general jack alvan and talking about in the 1978 or 79 this is how the military needs to balance heavy and light forces for example. after he visited in central america he writes the only way to change in our means to change its doctrine and i will do that someday. in fact they had a small competition going on between the two and as brad diluted, this m mystique in the general galvin with big m and little m so if

you ever see them called little m you'll know what they are talking about. but these letters the exchange are very candid and general petraeus had the thinking about the organization of the military, about the grand strategy in u.s. foreign policy. not all of that made it into the book. it ended up on the cutting room floor that may be in my dissertation if i ever finish. you can see what he was thinking back in afghanistan how it was playing out. so, in the summer of june, 2010, when general mcchrystal and the landstuhl article will not i remember sitting on the couch and watching the faces flashed across who could potentially replace him and i had friends from centcom saying do you think petraeus will go? no, they will never send him and

his picture was flashing up but as we per trey in chapter one of the book we already knew his name was probably in the house even though the media wasn't speculating that the time he had received a call from mcchrystal after the rolling stone article broke and the principal said it was going to be bad, and he was pretty sure that he was certain that he had received some vibes from the white house that he would probably lose his job. admiral mullen called petraeus and said you know your name is not being speculated about publicly but there is a high probability that you will be the one selected from afghanistan. so they read the first chapter and followed everything. he gets into the white house and he is there for a regularly scheduled meeting but someone in the oval office says the president wants to see you upstairs and as you are walking into the oval office secretary gates and other leaders are walking out and they do not get that contract so he knows he's about to get in new jobs and he serves. when the announcement was made in the rose garden i had the

opportunity to frame of my dissertation in the larger framework of the story of how this plays out in iraq and i was thinking about the book in iraq and found this truly extraordinary mentor and friend and writing coach and a partner and one thing i didn't mention is de mer alfonson you think petraeus is good, checkout my partner. in any case, the challenge i hadn't written anything like this or finished my dissertation , i have attention deficit disorder so it's a very hard to sit in place so having someone to accomplish this was helpful in designing the dark of the narrative and trying to find a way to fit in these biographical digressions. but i'm sure you are all familiar with one of general petraeus's sayings like building

an aircraft while getting shot at literally because we didn't know what characters we developed, we didn't know how the war would turn out and how it would operate and so forth, so, there was a pretty high temple for us to keep up with the fence on the ground and report them and then meet our debt line, so i apply for a visa and shelepin afghanistan and said general petraeus a note and he had been helping me with my dissertation thinking here is this benign doctoral student nobody's going to read the dissertation, it's not a big deal. didn't realize i was turning it into the book until my fourth visit or so when i send an e-mail from the pakistan border showing my odd sense of a debenture general petraeus said we just got shot at and he wrote back as general campbell and i

think he realized then my point is i was out there sharing hardship with the troops or at least accepting some risks to get the story come to get the scoop so he then said to his staff let's try to accommodate her a little bit and so i spent about almost four months on the ground but in three week doses at a time and it was helpful to do that to see how things were changing to get out of the environment to see how the world was being reported in the united states and europe and then get the story and has elude allies spent time with infantry troops and others on the ground in the special forces of the afghan local police sites traveling around the general officers heading roulade effort for this devotee effort that most of my time is spent traveling around with general petraeus to the security you a senior afghanistans and then just sitting in on meetings with him and in kabul itself to the extent i could if there wasn't a

lot of concern. so that's the story that we've reported over the year coming and we then fit in these biographical digressions in every chapter, and as brown also mentioned earlier, i tried to show and pulled from my dissertation for the variables influencing john l. petraeus' thinking and regard those as his social networks primarily his mentors and there are the four mentors first is the general that is a lieutenant at west point and whose daughter david petraeus married the wonderful holly petraeus and she has been a wonderful source of information for this research as well mcwherter. the second is rather unheard of but he was a member of the rangers regiment and he helped start the special operations command of the concept. before that he had been involved in the iran hostage rescue so

their letters show how the young david petraeus is thinking about special forces and special operations medical community which i think not a lot of people know he has a background and interest in albeit sort of academic interest he wasn't in that community and the third key mentor and most influential mentor is general jack alvan and he was assigned with general dolph and several times, but the correspondence is the richest and for sure the closest today. jian-li learned military history and leadership and management, but they both have a passion for low intensity conflict, so in the book you'll see how he influences him and his thinking about this in particular by inviting him down to central america to panama which is where the southern command is headquartered the time and there are the 6-inch resurgence is going on and petraeus slides a

run and most officers and hear or anyone who's been to iraq are afghanistan my peers and dug when the of this type of war but for young general petraeus who's in the peacetime army after vietnam is quite an honor opening experience for him to what to the group's to be handed a machine gun as he walked to his room he has to defend himself so you write the letter and is just blown away by it but he realizes that this type of warfare is important to pay attention to. the fourth mentor we all know here in washington as general jack keene's, and david petraeus first met him when he was working for the chief of staff of the army of the time, and she had been commissioned to stand at the joint readiness training center of the training center that focuses on the no intensity conflict or the side of the insurgency warfare but it was unconventional at that time because we were looking at a

large scale. the gulf war met just started so it wasn't really welcome or it was looked upon and the need of someone with a huge personality like jack to use his personality so they would take petraeus's eight to check on how things were going and he would pull him over and say what does he really think and he was able to gather some insight from petraeus and he spoke candidly and the at this instant rapport. jack called it a visceral sort and then everyone knows there is a story of petraeus getting shot and he was there with him when that happened but really that was what i think solidified their friendship and relationship and then they worked together after that. okay so the social net for completing the mentor is a very vague due to big variable. second is to get his education.

obviously i could show the west point experience myself the a different curriculum but i was able to get access to the records of his class part of the 74 study and look at what conflict the was studying and so forth there was no insurgency course, no elective he never to get rid of the was an interesting little find. but then i also traced his military education and experience of princeton which was for him one of his most formative experiences and one reason why he really encourages young people to try to have an experience because it broadened his of rival beyond with the military had been indoctrinating so again i looked at his education and then the third thing we looked up was his experiences, not only the typical military experiences the infantry officers but his experience in haiti which are the nation-building exercises

where he had his first exposure to the rule of law development and he got ideas he took fourth to the 101st airborne division on some of the rule of law initiatives head this and we'll get his experience in bosnia where he was greatly exposed to the intelligence community has special operations command. after the mission switched from one of hunting war criminals to hunting terrorists she was there when nine elephants have and they stood up a joint interagency counterterrorism task force and she helped spearhead this and he would go out on these raids with the green berets and the special communities to the rangers and delta force as well as the green beret. this is the first time those communities have the same missions so this is important for his development as a teacher commander in iraq and the indus and how to use those a fuel that he was out there in a baseball

cap after they would go in and knock on doors deutsch fans are themselves a negotiator and deliver letters to the war calls to turn themselves in and we don't go into too much debt in the book, but in his oral history interviews michael hanlon from the brookings institute is kind of a transformational period for him not only working with intelligence and special operations command fees and special missions units, but also working on a multi-year road map, so basically a comprehensive interagency international, all of these players where he met a lot of great context but it was the first time to really kick - off from that circle and have the sort of operational command of fuel and he's the deputy to read as we look at all of these experiences, and then we try to show how some of it plays of an

iraq. there isn't a heavy emphasis on iraq in this book because i felt and vernon felt they were covered with rick and robinson and jackie's great book but of the real story is how all this education has played out and plays out in afghanistan. the war in afghanistan, i don't think the book paints a good picture for the war dillinger on and one thing he said on his way out of kabul and we see about the days he regretted having to leave. he wanted to stay through another season, yet he and recognized the opportunity he had given to the agency, and they needed to get someone at the agency because i don't remember the threats around the 9/11 time period but the president wanted him to be in place. but he looks back and when he talks about what are his regrets and afghanistan, it was that he

started talking about night raids and counterterrorism because frankly speaking the was the only area that was really showing progress when he first got there. all of the forces were not in place yet and so there wasn't quite the momentum in the operations that we can see now and in some areas of the attacks were down by 30 per cent and helmand for example and others were up by 19% but he regrets having claims that counterterrorism and the night raids and so forth were where the war was heading into the discussion of where we are at today is an extension of that. he also wishes he could have focused on preventing civilian casualties. the report cannot today that talked about this is the fifth year in a row where the civilian casualties and afghanistan have risen and while the u.s. casualties are decreasing the insurgency are on the rise so

how does that translate into account our canteen is working? d want to say a few remarks at all? i can go into more in afghanistan and the war but i but like to do is open up and vernon has a few remarks to say to questions. senate i'm happy to answer questions. >> all right. do we have any questions? i guess you should use the microphone. >> please, go ahead. >> in your book as mentioned that petraeus wanted to become the joint chief of staff, but he was told that there was no way he was going to become the trend

chairman. can you tell us why he couldn't be the joint chiefs of staff chairman if he was this good? >> that is a great question and i get it every time. he wasn't considered for the position as we've wrote in the book, and in part it was because of a rumor has it were the sources which i had second hand is that washington was only big enough for one superstar and david petraeus was not eight, and so i think the talk is that he would not be valuable as chairman and was the tough budget cuts i have for the timmerman of defense and other restructuring and equipping and thinking of how we are going to fight the next war on the horizon i think fault was that having him in that position he would serve as the white house objectives there, so on the other hand, as you know, he was interested in the cia position,

and i think it is the best possible position for him. we shall in the book what he has been a a voracious consumer of intelligence and worked with 16 different agencies in the intelligence community for quite a while as the consumer intelligence operations he's very interested in what he can provide. he understands what needs to be provided so maybe it is a blessing in disguise. i think the bottom line is that he is almost too good for them to handle. >> it doesn't need to be stated or said michael hastings actually took heat from mcchrystal the pentagon makes the puritans of america look like greenwich village bohemians , but this sinnott mcchrystal wasn't insubordination but it was in

discretion and fraternization, somebody in the military isn't supposed to be all buddy buddy with an interior, and he was a soldier's soldier. what you haven't touched upon his or at least you've done so in passing and a very scantily is the problem of corruption in the friends and all levels in the middle east, proper security and that involves the killers, the fanatic killers, the religious colors, the revenged killers and how you deal with that. all it takes is one church to create havoc in a community coming into the third thing in the middle east at least in afghanistan and how you deal effectively with that, so all of those things play a role and then unfortunately in the military the report determines who gets promoted and that has sometimes less to do with

ability. .. the competition with the taliban and sharia law and they are settling the suit, you know whether it is by cutting someone's hand off for stealing someone but justices served in the government can't do it we had to start somewhere. so this law went out to each of

the basically down to the district level training teens petite or district level how to do speedy justice or some kind of justice. they are taking notes, pen and paper, to another computer system to share files on. it is getting better, but there's a long way to go. one positive step as good as biometric system. i think about two years ago we started gaining any afghan employee, and the insurgent for that matter so we could track them if they are coming into the system again. recidivism and so forth. the rule of law is one of the most complex challenges will face anywhere we do nationbuilding. >> the rule of the law there is not habeas corpus, but habeas

corpus. i'm fortunately all it takes is one or a few to create havoc in one community. >> thanks for your question. >> congratulations on the book. i can't wait to read it. exciting. greg martin said got a lot of credit at one time for some really innovative ways of building the country and building what was that, the three cups of tea author. i hurriedly he was widely read over there by the officers. and then he is kind of come under a cloud is something about fundraising, but nevertheless, there is a huge upsurge in education, elementary schools and all of that over in afghanistan. does he get a lot of credit for that? did he have a role in inspiring not quite >> was sure. it is important for young

officers to have role models to see what kind of difference, especially for non-kinetic energies can have. i think it was required reading that some models. but i don't know that he's necessarily galvanized that change. i think when we look at what we have learned from iraq in earlier years in afghanistan, those kinds of engagements of civil society can help. but the question is, how much does this help? and as a matter for national security? if these kids can go to school, that's wonderful. i'm the women's rights activist, but does that matter for u.s. national security? that's what you have to ask at the end of the day. >> okay. >> i am interested in the art form of collaborative authorship. i wonder if your co-op have a little to say how you planned and executed this book.

>> yeah, it is an art form. i would have to say that the drywall and politics all the hard work to apollo would go to afghanistan and when you're reporting is often a month behind real time. and she was sort of unleashed his fire hose of a remission on name and i would start basically sort of roughhousing chapters. we have different story, which was sincere and command, a year and turned out also to be his last command. so we have sort of the blessing of the natural threat story which we digressed off. so following that, you know i would basically rough out the chat terrorist and then it became an argument not a passing grass back and forth. i would produce a very abrupt drop in public refinement, and information i didn't have or haven't seen in the process

would go back and forth until a kind of had a final draft emerge. and then it became more collaborative with the editors, jenny smith at penguin got involved in the whole book was in proved on creating produce quite fast. it was produced in junior 24 and the last event of the book is a trans-being sworn in by biting september 6. so that if six months. that's about as fast as you can produce a book. it was fun. you have to have a good relationship and a good partner and trust between the part where i'm a editor now. i used to be a reporter for a long time and i find it by writing and editing for my vantage point. >> e.g. those guilty editor at the publisher? >> yes. >> makes a lot. it's very interesting. >> what my favorite parts of the

book is petraeus is sort of the dominant character in the great access to him in the lot is obviously told from his point of view. but we established a group of secondary care nurse. three of them are lieutenant commander sir commanded combat battalions. so he would tell the story of their war. one around kandahar, one in the mountains of eastern afghanistan about what sort of in of rolling hills of ghazni province. a male intersected with petraeus at some point in the year and then before the secondary characters can the same right here, a guy named doug lafond -- [inaudible] so if one of the lieutenant colonels here who is the general state, first in bosnia and then he lies in the invasion of iraq in 2003. so here he was back in

afghanistan commanding a combat battalion and it is the first time -- the fun part of the book is petraeus is a special relationship with a hundred first because he commanded them during the invasion of iraq in 03. this is first combat command. so this is his last command and it just so happened that the entire 101st was in afghanistan to put together for the first time since 2003. and again, david was one of the three combat leaders we write about in its core the d.c. and that doug lafond was the senior civilian adviser to the commander of the 101st in eastern afghanistan and doug was also has a kind of special relationship to petraeus and that doug was the planner of the surge in iraq in 2007 when he was with the first calvary division. so it is great that they are here. and i think if you read the book, i think you'll enjoy the

interplay between the dominant character, petraeus and then the secondary characters who are, you know, very, very different and very very interesting and very, very tough battles throughout the year and it's really a brutal board. and you know, writing about and from my vantage point, from a far was really interesting and really buying into me to see the kind of lives they live and be the nonmilitary person, the dedication and devotion in the way kerry cheapest day from people they people they lost there. >> two questions if i could. not having read the book yet, i am wondering what the other the political attack on the general is exemplified by general petraeus, and the other is, could she speak about your

cadets experience at west point? >> we do touch on the ad, for those that have not read about or know the history, move on take out an ad on the digital petraeus was testifying in september 2007 and there was question about veracity of the statistics he was using to report progress in the war and this is not to question whether it was petraeus or if he was misleading the press. one of the most hurtful yangtze ever experienced us to have that. another thing we try to show on the water is the human side of him, the burden of command and how important it is for someone at that level to keep the mask on and get the troops hope ebay at the end of the day he is human and it's tough to lose troops and be questioned at that point in time.

so okay, i could talk for hours about that. there's a lot of grads in the room. in hindsight, just wonderful. i would do it again in a heartbeat. i kept a journal when i was there and i had a chance to look through those about three months ago and i think i really didn't have that great of an experience. and i would add especially as a woman, but it's hard for everyone. but now i remember it with fond memories and i'm so proud to be part of the long gray line. it was the most formative thing that's ever happened to me in the most important thing was to embrace the concept of duty and our coaching habit greatest generation are doing that as well. i can tell you -- i can tell a lot of stories about west point but i'll stop there. >> thank you for taking time

today. i actually have a two in our question of the quick. the verses regarding richard holbrooke, unfortunately we lost in the relationship between general petraeus and him and who is whose weak man. that term has been different ways by 10 or to your general petraeus used more. the second has had at the afghans betrayed general petraeus in the last half question is among his many great strength were some of his actual weaknesses. thank you. >> thank you. good questions. restraint out the brookings institute brand president of pompous -- one of his afghan reviews and he was working closely with holbrooke, petraeus and clinton meant to specifically answer your questions, he was a petraeus was never been and that he knew he was the de facto leader of the team but it was important to have holbrooke as the face. think of the knowledge and experience he sat in the region. through the holbrooke of

knowledge that. your second question was the afghan. so you know, the interesting thing to just oppose as david petraeus in iraq where they called him my late dad, king david and maybe keep himself the name. i hear a drawnout bear. he's very well respected in iraq or the name street south that had. they do give anything to thank them for what they did for their country and i think it's very genuine. afghans not so much. his entry level position in this country was much more complex terrain coming through. add enough you can't say much more complex, but a very complex areas you visit it for certainly did not have the depth of knowledge, the network is not

only the tranten the enemy and the architecture there that he would have to work with a blue forces if you will. so i think he felt he had to prove himself. a lot of people felt like he talked about iraq all the time. they are thinking these people with experience are thinking this is not iraq. but it has mine at the end of the day there are many people who say it's not transferable. you can't take what we get there and do it here obviously. but i think he never really gained rapport and the crystal had with karzai any afghan ministers respected him, but it certainly wasn't the same level of respect he had with the iraqi government. another question. sorry, i should be writing these down. [inaudible] he is such a driven individual.

obviously he channels that drive and ambition to serve the country. i think is easier is in line with that, but it is not egotistical. it's egocentric if that makes sense. and he has a duty on our country and his service to the nation about his family. so i'll must consider that a strength and weakness as a working mother and wife gave my husband works really hard, to. it's hard to but it's clear that they have this wonderful marriage and very established children. other weaknesses. there are. i like to kind of teased him -- like i call him mono directional or multifaceted, not to joke obviously. it is extremely well read. read the book awakening is into spy novels. it's kind of funny.

but he doesn't like to do anything besides running dpt can read and work. and i don't know if that's a weakness, but if you like he could have more balance. at the end of the day it all comes down to this place and i said same results, boy. his dad in chapter two. his father is very tough on him but we don't get into it that much in the book, that his father had really high standards and david petraeus could never please didn't. so use to stream and to always do better and deliver results, whether it's winning a newspaper delivery contest and cool airplane on the soccer team and ski team. he was just always striving to please his father. probably all of us can relate to that and something. >> i understand your meaning of proceeds, but i was hoping you could tell us a little bit about the organization and heidi chose to support them. >> i'd love to, thank you.

it is called team red white and blue it was founded by a west pointer called mike irvine who is the nature and behavior sciences and leadership department of west point and mike was an intelligence officer at the tours in afghanistan. mike started this group to try to help wounded warriors find their new normal through physical fitness. a number of studies show that doing fitness helps to allay depression and suicidal tendencies and so forth and so on. the other idea was to give wanted or your something to belong to that they last a core of the military. anyone in here who is a pursuit he noticed noticed him at becomes. it becomes even more so when you have thought together or died or lost when trying to play and to come back to the u.s. and not the will to discuss with your family because they can't relate or you feel shameful. our blended warriors that have

won such as poster manic stress disorder don't get a purple heart. i feel we are not recognizing that we have an epidemic right now in our bedroom communities. 472,000 veterans from iraq and afghanistan have debilitating melissa poster maddock stress disorder in this number is the number that have come forward to the va. you can imagine tens of thousands more that are afraid to admit it because you get a state matter, difficulties to get hired if you have these issues. dramatic brain injuries and other individual but. so i'm working uso. in fact making a video tomorrow to call americans to go online for our troops. that does not mean just donating money. what this group embraces is that you will find ways to get active and to mentor some of these warriors. he can't run a race, maybe you can help online raising awareness, posted on facebook, whatever.

and whatever we can come at least welcome wounded warriors back and try to reach out to them and give them things or what they sacrificed for us. >> i would like to go back to the afghanistan matter, having served there in the embassy before the surge, i have wondered about the application of the iraq surge idea to afghanistan. a major part of the iraq ikea was buying off the local leaders. well, we have been by enough warlords in afghanistan for another and the taliban have access to unlimited resources from the tribe trade created betrays really the that the surge idea could just be locked up from iraq and put down in afghanistan and be successful? >> now, i think nobody has seen success in either country for that honor. but the surge is not to do in both countries is create the time and space so that the local

host nation national security forces could stand up and defend themselves. you have to deal with the whole -- at least in the fight? for macromedia to a power point really one-act, but it's not just a security solution. there's obviously the rule of law were talking about good international relations. get to get a lot of partners to agree on the mission on this date object is on the withdraw. you have to find out who has the capability to deal with counter drug operations. should we handle that or should britain? you can imagine the complex discussions that go on trying to decide who will do well. i don't think he thinks there's any dissolution in either country. especially if we have a precipitous withdrawal. what we have given the iraqis now -- in fact, he gave maliki a

picture of george washington two months ago when he was in iraq is sending. this is your chance. we've created this time and space. is your chance, iraq, to be the new beginning. so nobody knows how either of these wars are going to end and i don't confuse naïve to think the surge of the enough. >> how many questions do we get? >> we have five more minutes. you can have one and three quarters. >> i limited them to the cia situation. how much a president to bomb his interest having him go somewhere was political to get in on it the way? you know what i'm talking about. and the other part is part of a question, partly learned, that you mentioned that petraeus was a great consumer of intelligence. but on the other hand, it

appears to a newspaper readers so to speak that very same militarization of the cia going on. that is the core underneath my question and he was selected in part because of the special operations background and disuse about those kinds of devices in order to move this process within the cia further than it has been in the past, we've decided and should be of some concern. so if you could comment on that i depreciated. >> well, he doesn't talk cements about the direction the agency is going now. but if you look at open source reporting common sense he is coming to the agency and the number of months he's been there, the five menses in there, there've been more drawn strikes and 59 undersecretary penn and. but they've been more effect does, too. they've taken out seven of the

top 20, eight of them know we are seeing al qaeda -- the second improve for some of the strikes have gone down lately. but i don't know how to read into that. does that necessarily mean we are increasing the apparent militarization of the agents the? i don't think the president obama -- the myths that that. petraeus suggested the caa position as we said in the book and gave embraces in november, december. didn't talk until january. the first time obama and petraeus speak about the potential for the position in march. and the president really had been just mulling it over. i never got the sense from him from the national security or just put them to militarize the agency. but the trace of thinking, look how we draw down.

like how the defense department are shying away the large-scale use on the operation and the secretary gates said, the next leader who decides to commit to one of these operations should have their head examined. but as an author has it now. we want to avoid and it has the large-scale operation. petraeus is thinking as he goes to the agency, that is the kind of future warfare. so i would be speculating i guess that the president had an intention of really turning the agency into an oss again. but they are keeping up their drawn attacks and they've shown some effectiveness. and obviously they have less collateral damage and are important and we don't want to create our money by damage. i guess we'll have to wait and see. the challenges the transparency they we don't have a lot of information on what they are

achieving. [inaudible] >> my question is about the relationship you highly, specifically with eikenberry, karzai in general petraeus. you mention that there was a lack of conducive working relationship between karzai and eikenberry. the general petraeus did make the executive decision to do one-on-one meetings without karzai. you also mention that petraeus addressed the importance of civilian military partnerships. i am just wondering a little about your reflection how that came into play. was that the right call? the overall picture of that. >> well, one of the things he learned in his education in iraq was just how critical it is to have unity of effort with the civilian side because you can kill your way out of an insurgency. they needs to be a comprehensive civil military plan that ideally i hole up government after.

the surge of security forces arrived in afghanistan but we never did see a surge of civilian or system that was pretty frustrating to him. he found innovative ways to work around it. you know, one way it makes you from the boat is related to study and strategic leadership. how to get it done when you retrieve cat. if you want to have the afghan local police initiative but surely a special force officers, how can you be innovative and then it? said he brought in entry forces to augment the special forces that's really atypical. there's some neat examples of strategic leadership in action. and you know, in his dealings with karzai he just realize that anytime he brought eikenberry, karzai would become material and irrational on this, so he gets up reading him. that petraeus maintained a good relationship with eikenberry. they were best friends. they're both cordial and spoke politely to me, but when used

speak to the staff come to understand a little bit of tension and so forth. but i didn't really write about this in the book except to say that when petraeus love to rose. that day he was writing notes in his notebook of all the things i missed to do list and when the first people he wanted to call after holly was right crocker come his former partner and did call crocker and he was interested in joining him. and so they made a lot of calls for the white house and around washington to get there anyway to have this dynamic duo at work so well together. and obviously crocker didn't get there until years later. but she wondered, would it have made a difference? one more question. >> because we are politics & prose, i have to ask about huge possibilities. to think there's any role in politics? in general petraeus as time goes

on. >> already. i was on the jon stewart daily show became a half ago and i'll borrow my liner. but jon stewart asked the same question. i said well, my husband says i should say is going to run for office because he's going to sell more books. but i cannot tell a lie. he's not interested in running for a fifth. in fact, this mentor of mine i've mentioned my interest in potentially running for office. he says politics absolutely. we've seen some of these individuals, even though summers collegial friends, the trace amico says spent a lot of time. they'll stab him in the back in an instant to advance their political agenda and he takes that personally and he doesn't want to be like that. he also said he would run for office, you would have to yield on this principle of suitland

peripheral voters. i don't think so. i think he's electable by either party. i think whitmire tidies value orton and did individual. some of the mantras these describes do with either versus choose to leave your values. a lot of people can relate to that inserted the ideal setting for an a greater than yourself. he doesn't want to. he'd be great, but i don't it's going to happen. he also says for years, here's a fun if as they keep him. it's funny because he's like a teenager. he said excited about the agency in recognizing the quality of people there after dealing with -- you got that although unburdening dan brown, but the military is a lot of brawn and notice that these intellectuals than a party hearty israeli professor. one thing he thought about doing after he retires is becoming the president of princeton. he really loves academia, so