i think the policy managers in china understand that they can't push the pace beyond what the taiwan public is willing to tolerate, but there is anxiety. there's a perception among some scholars at least that taiwan's identity is stronger and this is a bad thing. but generally there is sort of tolerant view what's going on.

i have no idea whether they have me thinking concerning taiwan and if he does when we might see. my hope is that china doesn't get impatient and resort to greater pressure to i think that was great a difficult situation. let me talk a little bit about the u.s. you on all of this. first, the bush administration and then the obama administration had a positive attitude towards the president's policies the progress that was achieved under them. the obama administration took some steps that reflected the implicit language -- linkage between the policies of taiwan and u.s. taiwan relations. some in taiwan say that the

steps somehow were designed to influence the campaign. i don't know the answer to that question, but i think that the linkage is there and it's going to get expressed in concrete steps. some of you know that they're certain amount of discussion, at least in washington, about the concept of abandonment. one version of it is taiwan is abandoning the united states in favor of very close relationship with china. some people think this is a bad thing and some people actually think it's a good thing. then there are other americans who essentially say the united states should abandon taiwan, that u.s.-china relations are just too hard with the taiwan issue outstanding, we should regard it as a strategic liability and cut our losses. i actually think both of those views are way outside the

mainstream and that u.s. policy is going to continue, along the lines that it has for essentially the last 20 years. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, doctor bush. >> it's an interesting year to be having this panel discussion does china is coming up in american political campaigns more than foreign policy generally does, and it's come up in the context of sort of i'm a democratic consultant and strategist, but i will take off my partisan that for this discussion, scott, because i know we are a nonpartisan organization your, plus any of you who watch american cable

news can get plenty of spin and talking points from the romney camp and the obama camp so i will try to sort of present things in a way that is a little bit more meaningful, hopefully. you know, when we do -- china is coming up all the time. on the democratic side easy members of congress running ads. you see the president running ads and his supporter running ads, that often include china and ultimately india as well. and the concept of outsourcing jobs and trade. this is the attack on governor romney and his record at bain capital. the pcs less so in advertising but you do see the rhetoric from governor romney's campaign, while this president isn't tough enough on china, this president, china is a currency manipulator and this president doesn't have

the strength of leadership our character to hold china accountable. and this is the kind of rhetoric that you're going to hear a lot more of in the coming weeks. i look for this to be a topic of discussion in the debates where the art both forced to talk about in more than 30-second soundbites about issues involving u.s.-china relations, mostly on the economic front and the trade front. getting back to what victoria said, all of this is you said it well, there's tensions between china and the u.s. are more sentimental than substantial. campaigns really are all about sentiment, right? voters anxieties, fears, particularly economic anxieties and fears. so that's why you're going see a

lot of rhetoric from both democrats and republicans that appears to be very anti-china and i defer to dr. bush whether there are substantial policy differences between both these presidential candidates, are they any into port and substantive issues about trade, arms sales to taiwan, human rights or what have you. my guess is there's probably not fundamentally going to be a big difference in american policy, whether governor romney wins are whether the president continues on in the white house. so i guess the long and short of it is, it's american politics, china will be batted around quite a bit over the next couple of weeks. does it really mean anything regarding the long-term relations between the two countries? i guess probably not. so i'll give you a quick rundown your scott asked me to give a quick rundown of where the contest at the presidential level stands right now. if you look historically, look,

all of you i assume were around here in 2010 and it was a very difficult year for democrats. and if you ask me at the end of 2010, early 2011 with the president be in a strong position to win reelection? sort of my debt would've told me well, it's going to be a really tough 2012 for democrats. because, yeah, all the economic forecast were that nothing was going to get better anytime soon, in terms of unemployment. and it just, it seemed like, you know, the country was in a place that was pretty skeptical of leadership and the president is the leader. so they were really skeptical of all leaders of both parties right now, more so than ever perhaps. but that being said, a lot has changed since early 2011.

and it goes to kind of, goes to kind of the strength of the american presidency. it's historically very difficult to unseat a sitting american president. let's look at some trends. you know, let's look at 1980 until today. a key indicator, right, unemployment rates. this is been commonly set over last couple of weeks, you know, unemployment for such a sustained period, it's very difficult for a president to win reelection. you know, when the approval rating of a president is below 50% it's very historically generally those presidents lose reelection. and those two statements are pretty accurate. you know, in 1980, under president carter's administration there was 7.8% unemployment at this time in the

election cycle in late summer, and he was at a 27% approval rating. and, of course, went on to lose. in 1984, president reagan, there was 7.8 -- 7.5% unemployment, he was at 54% approval. he went on to win handily against walter mondale. in 1992, the first george bush, there was 7.7% unemployment. he was at a 38%, 38% approval rating and, of course, he went on to lose to governor clinton. in 1996 president clinton now, 5.5% unemployment in late summer. 59% approval rating in 1996. it's not surprising that he handily defeated senator dole. george w. bush in 2004, late summer, 5.5% unemployment, 50%

approval rating wins, a pretty close race that went. 50% approval rating, 5.5% unemployment wins over senator kerry. now, where does the president stated a? it's been over 8% unemployment comes all the figures, the closest to where the unemployment rate is right now is under the carter administration which was 7.8% this time in the summer of 1980. now it's at a .2%, and our president now is 47% approval. under that magic 50 number. this ought to be a pretty daunting moment for democrats and for folks in the white house and the president's campaign. but the math of the electoral college sort tells a very different story. you know, as you probably all know you need to understand the electoral votes to win, and

let's see where the stance. since i'm a democrat ongoing she is my source material as coming from republican strategist karl rove. some going to use his numbers in the presentation, just to give you a little bit more balance. so rove came out in august 19 is a map of where, based on polling and the various swing states, where he thinks the race currently stands. and if you need 270 to win, right now if you add the states that karl rove calls certain for the president or living towards the president, you give the president 257 electoral votes. and 13 away from the 270 necessary for reelection. when karl rove, if you add up is states, that are certain to go to romney, or living towards governor romney, 182 electoral

votes. 88 more needed to become the next president. so 99 seats are classified by karl rove and his strategist, 99 electoral votes are in states that are tossup states. i will briefly go over the tossup states and then i let scott go to questions, because i think we're probably running over. briefly, tossup states according to the republican strategists are florida with 27 republican votes, electoral votes, north carolina with 15, virginia with 13, ohio with 20, iowa with seven, colorado with nine. there are 91 electoral votes that are up for grabs in those tossup states. so, the president needs 13 of

those 91. governor romney needs 88 of those 91. i mean, this is the picture of the race as of today, right? states like michigan right now is leaning towards obama and karl rove puts in the obama column today. something could change in michigan a month from now, and that changes the dynamics a lot, 16 electoral votes in michigan. likewise, as of today, right, ohio is in the tossup category. a lot can happen in ohio, could end up being in the romney camp a month from now. we don't really know. so it's a fluid situation, clearly despite historic trends, about voters, the economy, unemployment rates, presidential approval, all those things are true and all those things are daunting for the president's reelection. but the math of the electoral

college as of today put the president in a pretty strong position. all the polling, however, the interesting thing if you look at the polling the last couple of months, the national polls, this is a dead even race. over the last four months or so it has not changed much. five-7% of likely voters of these polls are saying there and decide which is a very small number of undecided people, particularly before both the conventions have a chance to play out when people really learn about governor romney. for this small chunk of the electorate to be undecided at this point is kind of surprising. you think it would be a bigger chunk of the electorate. so it's been a dead even race. the last numbers i saw were 47-47, which is not much different than it was a month ago. so it's a very close race when you look at the national polls. electoral college is tougher for the governor. the economic mood and if i'm is tougher for the president. it's going to be another close

election. and i will toss it back to you, scott, to take the conversation where you want it to go. >> thank you very much. well, i suppose the most troubling thing i heard in that presentation was that for those of you watch washington television, you have 80 more days of camping as because virginia is definitely in play. but a couple other points, if i can summarize from the panel. very interesting, a divided society is how dr. bush talked about taiwanese politics, and i suppose you could say the same about the united states. and then we look to the prc and there's a rise of a new leadership class which is exciting, yet at the same time perhaps they are finding their way, or will find a way, and there's an undercurrent of nationalism coming up, maybe pushing from behind on the taiwanese side. it seems maybe the reproach momentum has slowed, and so

there could be, and in the u.s. you have a sentiment, and i think the candidates, correct me if i'm wrong, anil, but the candidates are pursuing this tough on china lie because they are seeing it fully, that's what the american public seems to think, or at least in these 12 states. so you have this kind of anxiety/upset in both the u.s. and prc at some level about the current state of affairs. well, enough of my comments. i'd love to hear from you, and please, your observations and comments for any of the panelists. and please identify yourself. yes, please. >> i'm with new dynasty tv. can you give it some more analysis, how the political scandal, how did that affect the

power transition in china? >> so the question was how did the issue of fact the transition, or is affecting the transition in the prc. an easy question perhaps. maybe not. >> yeah, it's controversial. so, china is not called scalable. it's called an incident. so there are no incidents, maybe test. so i'm not exactly know what exact inference that the influence on election. but from the media i think the

party will deal with separately from his wife peace. consequences of the scandal, call it a scam, is bushell will not be on the standing committee. there's a good chance at the beginning of the year -- there was a good chance at the beginning of the year that bushell would end up on the standing committee and that hope has disappeared. so it may make the leadership of the new, or may make interactions among the new leadership is your than it actually would have been, because he was a bit of a wild card. >> thank you. >> i'm just wondering what

impact of china-united states and taiwan election resolve on the three governments handling the dispute in the south china sea and the island dispute, will they have any new impact on this solution? and also my question for mr. bush, would you please comment on the taiwanese government handling the south china sea issue and the island dispute? thank you. >> the question is how does the south china sea situation affect the election, or the election affect the south china sea

situation. >> let me take a stab at it. obviously, leaders in china and in taiwan are under pressure from parts of the public that care very much about south china sea and the claims of their governments over those territories. president obama could come under pressure from governor romney if it appeared that he was being too weak in responding to the difficulties. but that hasn't happened yet but it could. we would probably see that in the debates i think. on the administrations handling of the south china sea issue, i ask or think it's pretty good. i think that the intense way

that nationalistic publics are focusing on this issue and engaging in symbolic actions, and the way in which elements of the different governments are operating in the south china sea and east china sea area is actually, creates a certain danger that there will be some kind of clash that will then spin out of control and not be easy to manage. president ma is approach is one that focuses on this greatest danger of the way that nationalism and operations of maritime agencies could lead to some trouble. he in no way gives up the our ocs claim, but it does place a lot of stress of showing restraint, peaceful summit, disputes and so on.

i think that's hopeful. spent on pat malloy, an adjunct professor of trade law at catholic university. and this is for mr. bush. my understanding is, taiwan, the people elected, there was election and the people participated in electing the leadership of taiwan. in the united states there's going to be money and everything. the people are going to elect the leadership in the united states. mr. bush, who determines whether leaders in china? is this the party election? an election within the communist party? how may people participate in electing the new leadership of china? i think that's very important for our c-span viewers to get an understanding of. >> i think this is an excellent question, that.

the process within the prc, the formal process is that the our elections at lower levels of that select delegates to the national party conference which we held sometime this fall. yes, communist party. and then at least on paper, the congress likes the central committee, -- selects the committee. and then -- [inaudible] >> 300. more than 300. and then they select the members of the political bureau, and that's about 30, and then they also select the standing committee at the pole at bureau. there's a lot of rumors flying around how big the standing committee will be this time. will it be nine as before or

seven? this is the process on paper. actually, the process is that the organization department of the communist party essentially decide who's going to be on the central committee, and who's going to be on the political bureau, and who's going to be on the polit bureau standing committee. said the self-appointed ruling body pics, sort decide to the in a nontransparent way within party councils. that's remarkably different from the other two societies we are talking about. it's quite amazing when you think about it, that you society and taiwan society have decided to take a big risk, and that is to let common people pick their

leaders. it's a very modern concept. it takes a lot of confidence in the good sense of your people to do that. but we do. and it works. >> i'd like to distribute the questions easily so i have one for each, but i want to start with something that scott bates said, and any beginning you said that chinese relation, china-u.s. relations are the most important, and the u.s.-taiwan relations the most sensitive. i like to turn that around a little bit and say the u.s.-taiwan relations is most important because we have shared values. we have taiwan that has a democracy. and those are the things to take good care of and to cherish and nurture. why the relationship with china is very sensitive one.

on the one hand, we have the economic competition. we do have conflicts in south china sea. we tried to get china to be a responsible stakeholder internationally, but it doesn't quite work very well. we have the iran-u.n. vote. we have the syria vote. so in many ways it is a very sensitive and competitive relationship. so my question to you is, would you agree with the assessment i just it, or do you agree with scott? >> thanks for the question. i think that the u.s.-china relationship is both important and sensitive. at the same time. it is very consequential, thinks about the future of the world and the future of the international system, over the next couple of decades. the outcome is probably going to

be governed by the type of interaction between the united states and china. that's already begun. and if one is an optimist, one will believe or hope that that interaction will work out well for peace prosperity and stability. if you're sort of pessimists, you will understand all the reasons why it will work out badly. and either can happen. taiwan is kind of caught in the middle. i think how the taiwan issue gets worked out is a very important test of what kind of great power china is going to be. it can treat taiwan in ways that suggest a very positive things about its trajectory, and those will be good for the united states, probably.

if china deals with taiwan and a less satisfactory way, then that is an important signal that the future is not so bright. so i would say it is both, to answer your question. >> dr. bush is an excellent diplomat. thank you. another question. yes, please. >> my question concerns the contacts in relationship to the societies that these politics reflect, cultural norms, the immigrant united states version of the individualism and the united states, similar cultural characteristics in taiwan and in mainland china. how are those going to play out over the longer term, as you reflect on not just this election, but implications of the current issues and then

these cultural characteristics or natural characters if you will, over these three countries into the future? >> a small question, which is that how do the cultures and national histories of each of the three affected future relationships between them all. i think i'm summarizing itóñóñóñ somewhat.óñóñóóñóñ anil, do you want to handle that one? >> thinking about the american side, culturally we are becoming much more diverse. it's a very slow process. and, of course, we've got other three, of the three countries involved here, we've got kind of the greatest tradition of rugged individualism, and i suspect it will probably remain to be kind of fundamental to the american character. but, you know, as time goes on

the growing ethnic diversity of america as people of asian origin, people of hispanic backgrounds comprised more and more of the population, it will probably change our political culture in ways we can't really foresee today. it certainly won't be anything dramatic, and i don't think in the last 20 years while i've been doing politics i don't think there has been a dramatic a cultural change in our politics. but the rate of ethnic diversity in the next couple of decades will be even more rapid than has been in the last two decades. so if the answer to your question is yeah, we are going to change but we never had this, we don't have any real experience with what ethnic diversity really does over time to the political culture of our country. but it's going to change.

>> yeah, china culture, the influence, i give you key. emperor always shows -- chose his official by giving them tests. now, even now in china, some officials are chosen by taking tests, very strictly. so i think now the government, chinese government, hierarchy, they come from asia china. chinese culture, the history and the culture influence of contemporary political culture. >> thanks.

with respect to taiwan, this is a very complex subject. it could be the subject of a whole session, but briefly, the communal relations on taiwan since world war ii have been very complicated and at many times difficult. it's basically a population whose ancestors had been there for some time, and then the nationalist party which had been fighting the civil war with the communists came. and the first decades were very harsh. some would call it a colonial occupation by the outsiders over the native people. this has led in recent years to sort of a contest of ideas over what it means to be chinese, what it means to be taiwanese. and what's the relevance of that for relations with big china.

i guess one might say that if this historical tension between communal groups were to continue, it probably weakens taiwan against china. the more that the two communities integrate with each other, and that creates a stronger society and perhaps makes it easier to deal with china, all other things being equal. but it also means that there's going to be residual part of the taiwan population, maybe 25%, to maintain a fear of outsiders. whether they are 1940 soldiers coming over or communists today. and if china is going to achieve

its goals, these are the taiwan from it's going to have to speak to the 25% as well as the rest of its top election, thanks. >> okay, i think with time for a couple more questions. yes, ma'am. right there. >> i'm to washington's liaison for democratic party of taiwan. everybody has agreed the continuity in u.s. policy towards china. and yet that policy has shifted some under president obama over the last period of time to this idea of rebalancing, that will be present in asia and a strong way perhaps than we have in the past pics of the question i have is, how will that affect into one and taiwan's role? richard come to talk about some people worry about i want abandoning the united states. one looks at the south china sea process and east china sea, and

some people worry that president ma's -- how this rebalancing will continue whether it's a romney administration or obama administration and how taiwan fits within the context. >> the first thing that has to be said is that the extent and depth of our presence in east asia depends a lot on whether how our political system resolves disagreements over the budget, and whether defense is affected by that. i think that for taiwan and all of our friends in east asia, a united states that is present and active in the region and willing to be firm when firmness

is required is good for them. it gives them confidence that they don't have to deal with china alone. and that's good. how individual issues are handled, whether it's south china sea or east china sea, that can be quite context dependent. i think i suggested that president ma is trying to balance different concerns. the historical claims of the rnc to some of these maritime territories, the ongoing relationship with china, but also the united states. and i think he came out about right ear thanks. >> i'm a student.

i'm wondering what impact you think actions will have on global economy? >> so what impact will these elections or these leadership transitions have on the global economy. and you are referring to the prc into the united states. -- the prc and to the united states. >> i think a couple different answers but first of all, the imbalance in the international economy in a way is a reflection of the imbalance between the u.s. and chinese economies. if you believe in -- the united states spends too much and save still. chinese safety much and spends too little. and that gets reflected in a trade surplus with china and deficit for the united states and so on. it's really an interest of both

countries, simultaneously to move in the direction of the other were china truly has has a consumer led economy and the united states has more balance between savings, investment and consumption. that is easy for me to say. it's very hard for the two societies today because there are vested interests who like the situation as it is, and benefit from the imbalance. and so it's going to require leadership in both countries to sort of change domestic and then external priorities. with respect to taiwan, taiwan is not a big player in international economy but it is an important player. the question is, will taiwan

take the steps it needs to take to remain competitive. vis-à-vis china, vis-a-vis other trading partners or rivals like south korea and so on. and that again and falls dealing with certain vested interests you wouldn't benefit from opening up the system and liberalizing. so that's a challenge for whoever is the leader of taiwan but i think ma understands that. what he to push his ideas through is another question. >> so far china i think economic growth is still the priority for their leadership. so now the most debate today is

-- [inaudible] model for the resources with the industries, and the service industry will be -- [inaudible] the orientation of development will change. >> you know, i'm not an economist either, but the differences between governor romney and the president's economic philosophies are mostly focused on domestic american policy. but as we all know, american domestic economic policy has great implications around the world, that economists of course can address. but fundamentally, the question is whoever wins this presidential election, are they going to be able to implement their policy with the house and the senate, is there going to be

a mandate coming out of this election where, let's say the president wins reelection, easy going to have a more compliant house of representatives and republicans in the senate willing to cross over and work with the democratic majority if the democratic majority is sustained. because of the mandate from the people that comes with what reelections are really about. or if governor romney were to get elected, you know, can he take the experiences from being governor in a place like massachusetts and make this town work and achieve some compromise that allows for america to confront its budget, budget issues and spending priorities and make some real decisions, versus the current situation where no decisions are being made. no one's policy is being implemented. the president or anyone else's. not eric cantor's policies, not the presidents policies.

so it remains to be seen, given how divided the country is right now, and if this does turn out to be a very close election, i think the whole world has to worry about whether a new president will have a mandate to actually govern in ways that can move american economic policy forward, for its own good and for the world. >> and it might be safe to say, anil, i think that if this congress can get its work done, it will be more likely, the fingers will be pointed elsewhere outside the united states, to blame problems not on the congress but on other powers out there. through that temptation. >> is a little unclear. i mean, most of the finger-pointing has been to the other party, or at the other party. even during european economic

crises over the last couple of months. whether that really registers on the radar screen of the average american voter, i kind of wonder. even giving with economists and academics, wall street types who are keenly aware of it here in the states, but i don't know if that really affects american politics. the republican goal has been to blame anything deficient in our economy or the most slow pace of economic growth and recovery, it's the presidents fault. and the democratic side, the transgenics of the congressional republicans, they won't allow us to pass a jobs bill, for instance, right? so we're kind of inward pointing. >> thank you. will, ladies and gentlemen, we've had a great discussion here. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> and please join us tomorrow

when we talk about the venezuelan election. that will be at noon, one massachusetts avenue. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> we are in the countdown to the conventions. in four days gavel to gavel coverage of the republican convention in tampa. live on c-span. coming up on c-span2, and aspen security forum on u.s. foreign policy towards pakistan and afghanistan. later, live coverage of the defense department briefing on u.s. operations in afghanistan. spent attorney general eric holder will speak today to the national lgbt bar association about civil rights issues related to the gay lesbian and transgender community.

live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs we case featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch t. public policy events, and every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites.>> the xt theow a discussion with the sety forud pakistani ambassadors to the u.s. they discuss efforts to combat the taliban, drone strikes, the drug trade and plans for u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan. the annual aspen security forum this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> during the course of the last session we took a look back and they look forward at the iraq fr war. and into session we're going to do likewise with regard to tohanisttan and pakistan as well. pakistaas and i cannot think of anyoneter better to lead the discussion in steve kroft who incidentally went to extraordinary logistical links to get you today to be with us. steve kroft has been a correspondent for cbs news "60ct minutes," for 23 years. and, of course, "60 minutes" we all know is the most watched w news program on television. his story on insider trading in the nested congress drove the recent passage of the s.t.o.c.k. act. m's the only "60 minutes" only0 correspondent to win two peabody awards in the same year, same bringing his total number of televisions most prest higious award for five.ard one was for a story on the phone abilities of infrastructure to computer hackers, the story and an issue that is of importance y

to us of course, and the other on the enormous sums of money spent prolonged the lives of dying americans. spent prolonging the lives of dying americans. please join me in welcoming steve kroft in this panel. [applause] >> thank you very much. we are following iraq with afghanistan. we have a very distinguished group here today. on my left is ambassador eklil hakimi who is the ambassador to the united states from afghanistan. next to him is doug lute who is an assistant in the area of afghanistan and pakistan. next to him is karl eikenberry,

former assistant best -- former ambassador to afghanistan. and we have on teleconference ambassador sherry rehman who was unable to make it today because of a prior commitment. she was kind enough and wanted to be here badly enough to agree to talk to us here. you can see her sitting back there. her in the television monitors around the rim. i want to begin this with a ". a recent article by dexter falcons in the new yorker published earlier this month. he writes after 11 years, nearly 2000 americans killed, 16,000 americans wounded, nearly $400 billion spent, nearly 12,000

afghan civilians dead since 2007, the war in afghanistan has come down to this. the united states is leading the, mission not accomplished. they have been abandoned or downgraded because they have not worked for there was no longer enough time to achieve them. do you agree with that assessment? >> with due respect, i do not agree. our people do not want to go to those dark days of civil war and also to dark days of taliban who ruled the country. now we have a strong military. we have a strong police force.

we have a vibrant civil society. we have a very active media, with a liberty that you cannot find within that region. it can only grow for the last 10 years. remarkable. more importantly, our own people are frustrated with board. they do not want to go back. if you look at that within a region context, more countries within the region wanted that to happen. afghanistan as history has taught us, it is located in the heart. if a heart is not functioning and not pumping the blood within a system, the whole body is not

working. no country within the region as far as i know, iran and afghanistan were to slip back to the civil war. the one afghanistan to be invigorated within the region. also, we have strategic partnership agreements with our key allies, the united states of america, with the united kingdom, with france, italy, germany, australia, india, and a lot others are coming into the pipeline. that will give assurance for in during partnerships for the years to come. >> i would say baxter has a run on two accounts. the mission has not yet been fully accomplished, the mission

against al qaeda, the core mission to eventually defeat al qaeda -- as we have heard it is within sight. it is not yet accomplished. nobody is saying mission accomplished. we are saying that is within sight. the other point where he is wrong as we are not leaving. one of the major outcomes of the chicago summit two months ago is that while we are on a path to transition to lead to afghan responsibility by the end of 2014, even beyond 2014 we imagines with afghan invitation there will be a sustained u.s. military presence, diplomatic presence, intelligence and present -- intelligence presence. the mission is not yet accomplished but it is within sight and we are not leaving. >> i was telling steve i know i definitely left government and military service when i am

comfortable sitting on stage with 60 minutes. three points. first of all, what do we know about the mission and what we have accomplished? think back to 9/11, al qaeda is not in afghanistan in any kind of numbers. al qaeda has been weakened over the last decade and was dealt a heavy blow last year that was from a base in afghanistan. in terms of governance, afghanistan is fragile, but over the last decade they have been through four elections. they have been flawed elections. from an afghan perspective, look back in 1992 and 1993. how did power decided at that point? it was a group of war lords firing rockets into the city. tens of thousands dying. massacres that followed. from an afghan perspective, how the politics look right now?

fragile, but better than many years. the third point about successes in the economic social-service dumbing, transformational in terms of education. in 2001 there were 1 million afghans going to school. now there are 4 7 million. 40% of them are women. health care services has been transformed. will these gains all hold? will there be reversals? what we also do not know and historians will have to tell us -- maybe the panel will talk about this -- was the end ways and means we adopted for the campaign in afghanistan, where they sound? the third would be just to agree with what doug had said. the mission is not over. the mission is being redefined. is going from one or the international community has been in the lead and of the critical domains to one in which the

afghans are in the lead. we are going from a position of lead to a position of support. is a change of mission, not an end of mission. >> i want to hear what ambassador raymond has to say about this. what is the position from afghanistan? crux i certainly share the hope and vision that you have articulated. afghanistan is looking to a future where were finally comes to an end and clearly wants to be in the region. pakistan is committed to maintaining the peace, security, and civility. we look forward to a time where there is a measure of sustainability and afghanistan. we hope to support all efforts in that endeavor. very quickly, i would like to say that most important in all

of this is that afghanistan belongs to afghanistan time, which is an effort we all have to bring capacity and resources to. i say all because there is the united states with its big footprint. we are next door. to every difficult time and talents, we have supported afghanistan. i stress the position by saying, one of the primary concerns of women all over the world -- s p not just for pakistan -- is the status and position of women in the future where we hope there is not a vacuum in areas where local

forces are not strong enough's or cohesive enough to bring it to gather the level of defense needed to maintain the gains. we are obviously going to do our best to ensure that not just our border areas, but there is a security vacuum there often, those become -- they do not maintain sanctuaries for terrorists. we have sanctuaries on both sides, which is struggling for pakistan. really i think we lost the

peace. we may have won the war, but we lost the peace. we have to be in a position where if we think we have won the war, we have to worry about protecting a piece that will show the way forward to a secure, stable, and economically viable afghanistan that can meet its own needs. we may be a few miles away from that. i think our job here is to without meddling to ensure it is able to remain stable, cohesive, and in the days to come. pakistan is engaged. we will continue the intensification of the dialogue at all levels. and we really hope the level of

interdiction at the international border between afghanistan and pakistan goes up. we are beginning to see a little bit of blow back from redeployment in afghanistan. i do hope a great deal of what we look towards in the future is going to go beyond the planning stages. execution of policy is crucial. maintaining the gains made by nato, isaf, and afghanistan should not be wasted. that should be our main goal right now. to preserve security and stability for all components of the population. >> i have a question for general eikenberry. i want to go back to the figures

mentioned here. i can see that we killed osama bin laden. i will can see that the deterioration -- i will can see that the deterioration of that organization al qaeda in afghanistan has been severely damaged. but we are talking huge numbers here. we are talking to thousand americans killed, 16 million americans wounded. $400 billion. and we are leaving a situation where the talent and still has a very robust defense -- taliban still has a robust defense. they have sanctuaries on the borders. i am sure the ambassador would agree, there is still a great deal of corruption. i do not think anyone believes that the taliban will be

defeated or the government of pakistan is going to be a functioning western style government. i guess what i am saying is, just cutting our losses right now because it is proven to be too difficult to do all of the things we had talked about doing -- too expensive than life and blood to continue this for an indefinite period. is that the reason for these decisions and this current policy? >> look at the gains we have made. i will not repeat those. this audience is sophisticated enough to know what the baseline looks like. i think going for the transition strategy that has been outlined in sanctioned by the united nations is a sound way ahead.

there are challenges with pakistan right now. pakistan is not on the side so to speak, this transition becomes much more problematic in terms of treasure and more lives. there are challenges with the afghan national security forces with their sustainability and their capabilities. there are challenges on the economic domain that as for the level of international aid starts to decline over the next few years, it will have a shock effect on the afghan economy. there are problems with the afghan governments. there are problems with accountability of the government. to say that at this point we need to continue to double down on our efforts, i think we are added. in the united states, look at our own economic problems. something that really struck me coming home from overseas is the extent of our economic problems. we have infrastructure problems

and education problems. i do not think the united states can afford to continue to invest in campaigns like iraq in afghanistan like we have over the past decade. the transition has a reasonable possibility of success. we reached a point here in terms of our own means that are available. i think frankly in terms of the afghans it is time for the transition to take place. i am reading right now washington life. i came across as he talked about dealing with the french, washington saying if we're going to win our liberty, our army has to be the one to win the battles. we needed the french, but it is hours to win. we have reached a point where we have done a lot. there is a good foundation.

we will continue to do more. is over to the afghans at this point. >> if you ask americans in the wake of 9/11 what price would you be willing to pay to buy a decade without -- remember the days? i have my personal memories. everybody has their personal memories what happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. who would have thought 10 years without another repeat with al qaeda. who would have paid 10 years ago for the dismantlement and destruction that we see, ardsley but they have acknowledged over the past day and a half. not only have we been safe in terms of treasure and lives and so forth, but it has not been -- in has not gone without value.

we really have gotten after al qaeda. they are on the edge of defeat. frankly, as a 10-year investment, at least one american here that sounds like a reasonable price to pay. what you think it has been worth the investment? >> any individual life -- there is probably somebody in this audience who has lost a loved one. for that individual and family, it will never be worth it. the question had to do with america as a nation. americans bought 10 years of security from al qaeda and has -- and we have bought ourselves and side of defeating the movement. the core of the movement in pakistan and the border region. to me, never negating the

individual losses that got us there and the first place, it seems that is a national price worth paying. >> go-ahead. what do you agree also it was worth it? >> i agree. the way that doug framed it. if historians look back over the last 10 years and a rock and afghanistan, will they conclude that we needed to spend as much treasure as we did, as many lives. it is hardwood you are in the midst of a campaign and at war to try to think through all the uncertainties and come up with the optimal strategy. however, having said that, i do think the united states must conduct a good review of the wars we have fought. just several brief points about this. the starting point of our

counterinsurgency strategy, a good first principle stated, we are there to protect the populations. we accept that. what does that mean? to protect against insurgents? yes. against drug cartels? i am not sure. against the tribe on the other side of the hill versus the try we are aligned with for the past five years? these are the questions that we develop a doctrine. without questioning the doctor and we start to accept that as a strategy. there is one other point that i think needs to be examined in the wars that we fought. we had a contract in the united states over the years between unspoken contract between the civilian leadership and the military leadership of our country. over the past decade, our military has started to get in more and more areas that go far from the huntington model of the

military's there to manage violence. we give them autonomy and oversight in that domain. my concern over the past decade in the wars we have fought, our military has gone into anti- corruption and on a goes. as that starts to erode from the most specific definition of what a professional officer does, manager violence, i think accountability begins to suffer in the military ranks as well. >> to remind the american public, why you have engaged in afghanistan in the first place. that was because the u.s. security receives threats from that part of the world. terrorist groups use that

against the u.s. 3000 innocent americans lost their lives. because of that. all this blood invested there. also, when afghans played -- when afghans paid the price, 1 million afghans died and 1.5 disabled. and we defeated the soviet union. at that time also afghanistan abandon the. again 10 years of that, we were really engaged. i think we should be honest to say that the security of afghanistan, how it links the security in the region and also security in the u.s. >> you made reference earlier --

>> can i come in? >> i have a special question for you. you made a statement that without the cooperation of pakistan this was going to be extremely difficult to do. there was a time when the united states and pakistan war allies. that seems to have ended. friends and allies. that seems to have ended. i think three out of the four people in pakistan right now consider the united states an enemy of pakistan. millions of people are asking the question, is pakistan friend or foe? what is the answer to that?

>> very quickly, i think the united states and pakistan have been through an extraordinarily difficult time over the past seven months. it was suspended because we had 24 soldiers killed at the border by nato and isaf forces. doors were unlocked when an apology clean up both sides to prevent it from spiraling down. yes, you have talked about this. i think it still is very strong really. a strong commitment on both sides. i can speak for pakistan that we see very little value and not rebuilding our ties with the united states and afghanistan. we are intensifying our engagement with all of our

neighbors on both sides. the united states has been an ally and friend it through many phases of our history and relationship. i sympathize with the ambassador who says afghanistan was abandoned. there is a problem. pakistan is -- we were in chicago at the summit. we were there for giving our support to the project. to say we do not want a repeat of the 1990's. we do not want another security vacuum again. we do not want to afghanistan to slide into civil war. we have a high stake in their security. in 12 years when you say, it has

been defeated with pakistan and constant marches against and cooperation in the field. we have captured and brought to justice or have handed over to the americans over 250 high- value targets. we now are looking at a degraded core. we hope to be able to deceive them -- the feed to them with american cooperation but without impossible demands. everybody is in citing losses. we empathize and sympathize. where is the sympathy for pakistan on having lost 42,000 lives in the last 12 years since we committed ourselves to the war? this is not a grievance narrative i want to bring to this. we want to engage in a

constructive and very concrete conversation. we can take both of our games for them prepare for a time when the american presence obviously has gone down. as we are told, there will be an american presence in afghanistan. but we hope once again that the capacity and capability of the forces and their policing mechanisms remain of the quality and caliber that can take on what we hear. we hear about in search and violence. this adds to pakistan's anxiety. it really is important for us to cooperate. we do look to the united states to not make what i call an

irresponsible exit. i hope that is the way we will look at it in the future. >> let me just come in and undermine -- underlined what she just said about a common interest and our two countries. that is the ultimate achievement of this core goal, to defeat al qaeda. as she rightly said, there have been more al qaeda leaders and operatives captured and killed and pakistan on than anywhere else in the world. the other core common interests that she highlights is the stability in afghanistan. there is no stability in afghanistan that does not involve pakistan on. there is no stability of pakistan on the design of afghanistan. we have a common interest to get this right on both sides. >> secretary of defense panetta indicated he sees no reason -- he sees no reason to end the

drone strikes across the border. there was a pakistan a doctor in prison right now. sentenced to 33 years for treason for assisting americans in the search for osama bin laden. what does that say about our relationship with pakistan where it would seem they have more loyalties to osama bin laden than they do to the united states? you are talking about an international fugitive wanted all over the world and somebody goes to jail and prison for treason for trying to turn him in? >> steve, i defer to the ambassador on that. in a word i call it outrages. >> can you explain that

decision? this is one of the problems with the relationship right now. americans look at that decision. they say, what is going on inside the pakistan government? what is going on inside the courts? they clearly seem to hate us. >> if i may interject here. i do not think there is any question of hate here. pakistan is are in a place where we are looking for our first democratic transition. our institutions have found -- our records are looking with. we have lost a prime minister to the actions of the supreme court in pakistan. we are working according to our constitutional law. let me just say very clearly.

he had no idea he was looking for a summit and leighton. do understand for pakistan, and the ground, he was contracting with a foreign intelligence agency without anybody's position. he was contracting with groups who are be heading our soldiers. he was contracting with many people on the ground. he had no clue he was engaged in this historic fight against -- a search for a sum of been laden. i would also like to point out that -- osama bin laden. i would also like to point out, if you heard president obama's speech, he recognized pakistan's cooperation leading up to the eventual killing and search. i think there is no question. it really pains me to hear

pakistan is being put in a category of a country that is harboring or is looking to preserve osama bin laden's sanctuary. all other high-value targets were found with pakistan's cooperation. that is not the profile of a country that is looking to hide osama bin laden. we were all excited when he was found. when it was discovered it was without our participation, it was with our assistance at some level. that incident and did straining factions because it was a strike into pakistan we would have certainly cooperated. we would have said share the intelligence with us and we will go after him. i cannot really say what can or

should be done with him. he is facing the courts. he has access to justice. he will appeal his sentence if he made. that is really a choice he has to make. to tell us we cannot put -- send it to court a doctor who has put into jeopardy children who are now facing critical vaccines -- what he has done is he has done a great deal of our workers on the ground, put them in danger. our primary vaccinators. he has endangered people's lives. we are not a country looking to be -- this is one of the charges

i think holds up against the doctor. it is not about who in some -- who assisted the united states to find osama bin laden. we have been assisting the united states. i have to say with a disrespect, it is quite outrageous to say pakistan has been -- i have to say with due respect it is outrageous to say pakistan after all the sacrifices -- >> i think general has something to say. >> another good thing about leaving service is to get your first name back. three quick points. not to disagree with our pakistan ambassador. . no. 1.

the u.s. popularity favorability from pakistan is 7% right now. that is even lower than u.s. population favorability ratings for our congress. that is very low. it is not entirely due to pakistan. those ratings are like that. the second point is, i think for the united states we are simply over the past 10 years are not clear what pakistan's interests are. i am not sure pakistan is clear or unified on this. on the one hand if you are pakistan and you are part of the national security apparatus and looking at the potential for a week afghanistan, then staying aligned with the afghan taliban makes good sense. if afghanistan were to collapse, they will once again become the playground of great games. there is an argument they would

want to hedge. on the other hand you can have a view that the pakistanis think afghanistan will succeed brilliantly. you may want to heads with the taliban as well. there can oculus remains opaque to us. the third point, -- their calculus remains opaque. the transition, this first successful civilian transition, that is critical. stepping back we always will come to the conclusion that pakistan needs to get a strong civilian government that controls its military. the nature of the relationship has been one in which the urgent has always trumped the long term strategic importance. the urgent is most recently the war on terror.

compromises' deal directly with the military. it deals with the isi. of course that makes sense for the united states of america with the consequences of 9/11. i am not sure that is a strategy which 20 years from now will make is any better off. >> i have one more question. the united states has been very critical and the press has been critical of pakistan. particularly for giving sanctuary on the border. you have all i am guessing have been to that border region as i have been. it is a very difficult place to defend it. a place politically where the pakistan government has almost no power and very little influence. is it fair to blame the

government of pakistan for making that area available when in fact they do not control it? they have sent troops in there a number of different times and sustained a very heavy casualties. i guess what i am saying, has pakistan been unfairly attacked for the border issue? >> you know, the way we look at this is sovereignty has privileges. that comes with responsibilities. that is true on both sides of the border. you cannot control the border from one side alone. we have been quite deliver it with the afghan government to do so on its side of the border.

pakistan has a sovereign responsibility on its side of the border. even if you could make the case that is in the interest of pakistan or was at one time to support the afghan taliban by way of permitting them sanctuary and so forth, i don't see that today the posturing -- the pakistani taliban presents such a significant threat to pakistan itself that whatever that hedging strategy might have been some time ago, it no longer makes any sense. there's no way in our view to discriminate effectively between the afghan taliban in the border region and the tallis' -- palestinian taliban itself. it may be hedging approach but is out of date. >> this is something we have

been arguing for quite some time. from the safe haven on the other side of the line, or opposition forces receive financial support, equipment, and training. initially, nobody wanted to admit this. now everyone admits, our partners, everyone is pointing the finger that that is the area we should deal with. you cannot ignore that. >> the chairman clearly mentioned in his last days in office that the haqqani network -- we have been receiving

promises from our pakistani friends that they will do something and we are hopeful that there are some practical steps toward that and is not the difficult to say that's taliban is not welcome to use pakistani soil. there are a lot of promises but it is better to be under promised an over delivered. >> may i just add voice to what the ambassador is saying. pakistan has clearly and unequivocally said that we will -- we would be very happy to assist the armed forces but we

have not seen any serious -- we are not clear about what the u.s. policy of the last few years, where it is going. if we are to assist in the restoration of the peace talks that are going on, and we are assisting at every level, but at the heart of this assumption is that 49 nations have not been able to accomplish the goals and afghanistan and somehow pakistan should somehow

accomplish that with its 150,000 troops committed to the border. they are very clear that pakistan is maxed out on these national borders of afghanistan and there have been extensive anti-terrorist operations. we displaced hundreds of thousands of refugees in our own country shifting them out of a huge range of areas and what did we get? we are in effect at the heart of the whole argument is the assumption that pakistan has limitless capacity.

the united states and others can walk away but we cannot walk away from it. we will have to stay here in the trenches and on the front line. i will give you an example. over the last eight months, we have constant firing and attacks and these are critical masses of people that come men, not just people going across the border and coming back. we have informed u.s. and nato forces at least 52 times on the longitude and latitude on where the terrorists have gone. we should not be getting this constant message that pakistan has to do everything on its side of the border.

we assume it is a capacity problem but we would assume at least that amount of [unintelligible] be given to pakistan. you see the public messaging which is constantly assuming that pakistan should mop up where everybody else lives of. we cannot do this alone. that is what we need a partnership and we need to focus on goals that are concrete and deliverable. that is what we need our ministries to act in concert with each other. if we are operating in the south, it would be a good idea if they are operating in the south.

one of the ways to triangulate terraces through their conversations and i am sure that all this can be achieved. we have nearly 1000 border check posts on our side of the border but we are seeing about one- tenth of that on the nato access side. here's a question on what is a priority. we have had over 250 barona tax -- drone attacks and we are unable to take them on or smoke them out. >> we want to turn this over to the audience for questions and i have a couple more questions i want to raise. >> i have to reply to the ambassador. there is no comparison of the pakistani taliban relatively

recent, small in scale presence inside afghanistan and in particular, these too remote provinces, it to the debt -- decade long experience and relationship between elements of the pakistani government and the afghan taliban. to compare these is simply unfair. >> you lead with how difficult the terrain is and the ambassador -- it is like telling a bunch of young captains or majors that are going to fight up there, welcome to the outpost on the moon. it is extraordinarily difficult terrain. we understand that, but my second point is that, let's take the haqqani headquarters. about a kilometer away from the

main activity is the headquarters of the ninth infantry division of the pakistani army. pakistan has suffered great losses in the war on terror. i do not dispute that. do credit needs to be given, but i have to say from my perspective, a very good start for pakistan would be say we are not going to go in and fight because it would be very tough fight. we call the afghan taliban leadership and tell them you have several choices to make right now. you can stop fighting and begin peace negotiations, you cannot fight from our soil. you can put down your weapons and we will see if we can integrate into pakistan, or number three, you can go into afghanistan and continue to fight, but not from our soil. >> we are very happy to do that. that is certainly the provision of the pakistan government

today. the challenge lies in our state as much as the challenge lives in afghanistan. there is no question right now of hedging bets. we are not betting on anyone right now. the entire focus is not one group. we make sure the prime minister meets with everybody. we are in constant conversation on how to move forward. i would like to point the group from moving from a security transition to talks of peace. we are getting mixed signals. [unintelligible] this assumes that we can always bring everybody to the table and

that we have a high stake in [unintelligible] and that brings afghanistan into the future as a modern, developing, emerging democracy. yes, we have a stake in that and we are very clear that that is the model we would like to invest in. there is no betting on the taliban. the challenge us as much as they challenge of afghanistan. they must do so according -- according to the constitution of pakistan. there are certain areas that are not easy to govern. it has to be incremental. we cannot be asked to bomb

people on our own mall others hang back. i think it is a question of priorities being developed on both sides. this would be a constructive time to do so. now that there is a will on both sides, that includes india as well as pakistan. we are making great strides in opening trade. this is the new pakistan. . >> what are the realistic chances of some sort of meaningful negotiations between the tall ban and whoever, afghanistan, the united states, pakistan, some combination of those to bring about some sort of a political

resolution or a ceasefire, somen sorts of, some sort of outcome that might end this for the afghan people? what do you think? this for the. what do you think? >> the peace process has two tears. one is reconciliation and one is reintegration. on the reintegration front, we have achieved a lot. a reintegration designed to bring the foot soldier's within the system. with that in mind, those that renounce violence, cut ties with al qaeda, they are more than welcome to reintegrate. there are more than 4000 taliban foot soldiers already in joining the program and they enjoy the

facilities we are providing. on the reconciliation front, however, there are a lot of talks and discussions, but this is a process. if you try to achieve something overnight, it is not going to happen. we have opened a different channel of communications with them. most recently that a university, the taliban was represented in one room engaging with a peace council from our government. it was not a negotiation, but an exchange of views. everybody made their point clear. we think that with the support of all or pakistani friends,

that have been saying they are supporting the peace process, which we appreciate. we are seeing some practical steps that have something at stake in nagin play a crucial role. it is something that is going on. this is one of the top priorities in our government', and within the taliban also, there are moderator's that we want to join. they still insist on military operations. there are signs that make us believe that we can get results in the end. >> and to the question why the taliban would want to enter into

negotiations at a time when the united states is scaling back and withdrawing its troops, and by the end of 2014 we will be down to no combat troops. why would they not want to take a chance and see how good the afghan army is before they start thinking about -- >> they may want to take a chance. what president obama has made clear is that the door is open to another possibility. that is a negotiated political process that could leave for the afghan taliban leadership that is not subdued to the pressure of the military campaign. leave open to them of door back into the political process in afghanistan. they have to meet three conditions. have to break ties with al qaeda cost of the insurgency, stop the fighting, and when they come back to afghanistan that have to do so inside the

framework of the afghan constitution. so there are conditions to this notion of reconciliation. what they think about doing this? they are being hammered by troops and approaching 350,000 afghan forces. they are under extreme military pressure. this is one of the design features of the military campaign, to put sufficient military pressure on the movement so that the door that president obama has opened, the political process, is effective. as we transition from being in the lead to the afghan forces being in the league, the taliban narrative of counter occupation is the taliban narrative against -- of jihad against the west begins to erode.

finally, we believe that by way of our partnership with afghanistan, and not only with the u.s. but eight other countries in the nato alliance, send signals to the taliban that they cannot wait us out. if they like the current situation, living in some sort of safe haven, although probably as second-class citizens in pakistan, if they want to continue another decade of this, then the door will remain open until they see otherwise. >> talking about the progress that has been made, in the big urban areas of afghanistan, things have transformed since 2001. a lot of young people there have a different world view. for the taliban to believe that they could claim all of that back again, that is a stretch.

does that mean that as we go forward with transitions, there will be problems with security and bad governments in those areas? going forward with talks in the taliban, there are three points. very importantly, if we get this transition right, then the taliban narrative is evaporating everyday as the afghans move to the lead. number two, it does make the point that we have really got to get this in during or longer term presence right. that longer-term presence that we have after 2014, security systems may be counter- terrorism, it adds up to

reassurance to the afghans and also the right incentives to the taliban that we are not leaving. the final point is, we talk about a political settlement. sometimes we overstate this as a question of taliban versus all the rest of the afghan body politic. my own view is that afghanistan writ large, going back to travel times in the mid-1970's, the afghan body politick means -- needs recommend -- reconciliation among themselves. it is a subset of a larger dialogue that has to take place. let's be clear. the taliban in the mid 19--- 1990's to take control over a lot of parts of afghanistan, they were welcomed as liberators from some very

vicious war lords whose deprivation had opened the door to the taliban. some of the war lords occupied positions of formal and informal power in afghanistan today. problem goes far beyond the taliban. >> sunday bully the whole situation could fall back into civil war, that after the united states leaves and the stability that has provided there in terms of security, that you run the risk of these tribal groups that have been at each other's throats in some cases for centuries are going to re-emerge and people will leave the taliban and everything will just go back to the way it was. is that a real concern? >> in afghanistan before the

soviet invasion, we live with each other peacefully. before the invasion, we had a constitution, a model society, rule law, a justice system, and this perception that afghanistan had tribes fighting with each other, that is not right. when the soviet invasion happen, from that point on until the civil war and so on, for the last 30 years or so, we had fighting imposed on us. before that were left side by side for years.

something that we believe is that we do not want to go back to those dark days. we are looking for the bright future. one point i want to make about corruption, most recently we had a very successful conference in tokyo and more than 17 countries came. that pledged to support afghanistan for the next 40 years. we agreed about mutual accountability, that we do certain things while our international partners will do certain things. three days ago our president already issued a decree with 23 very ambitious measures to fight corruption drastically across the line.

[unintelligible] >> the thing that is a realistic scenario? >> several points i would make. i agree that the afghans are tired of war and have many adults in their lifetime that have seen the tragedy of civil war and taliban occupation. secondly, there are no neighbors of afghanistan that are pulling at any of the domestic groups of afghanistan. there is a fractious set of ethnic groups. third, in 2006 i went to town

where the first afghan national army headquarters was located. we visited the major general in command. he said he was most proud of the staff monitors in the room. we were all fighting each other about 10 years ago. steve asked what he was most worried about. he said i were you americans will leave before it is time. i thought he was saying before we had gotten all the equipment to them and the barracks were built. i was wrong. he set out will go back to what i am most proud of. we are not ready yet to work together. we don't have a level of trust and confidence. we need you here for a longer time for us to achieve that. my view is you do not need 100,000 u.s. troops to achieve that. you can be clever.

i think they do want us to have a smaller footprint in their country than we do today. >> given the level of development of the afghan political structure, civil war might be a risk if we did not have a deliver it transition process. and beyond the transition process, if we did not plan today for a sustained u.s. supportive role alongside the nato alliance, and from 50 other countries, they have said essentially we will not replace 999. it is not a 25-year break from 1989 and we will just repeat the tragic history when the russians left. >> willing to take some questions from the floor. we have people with microphones. let's start here in the middle.

>> general, if i am understood correctly, you least questioned the utility of engaging the narcotics traffickers or the drug trade in afghanistan. my question is, is it really feasible to consolidate the gains we had made with such a treasure without dealing with the narcotics trade which fuels the insurgency, corruption of public officials and institutions, undermines public confidence and generally challenges the rule of law? >> i did not mean to communicate that the war against drugs in afghanistan is not a model for afghanistan's success and stability. i was talking about the loose definition of a military doctrine. but the approach is in countries like colombia and afghanistan,

they must be continued, absolutely. afghanistan produces 9% of the world's poppy. we think for every $10 worth of corruption that exist with those poppy dollars in side of afghanistan, seven of them are going to the police and the government of afghanistan. three of those are going to the taliban. so this is a very serious problem. because of the existence of the drug trafficking and its politics, i don't know how you can eventually stabilize afghanistan unless you continue those efforts. >> i have a question regarding lessons learned for afghanistan. we chose a strategy, the heavy

footprint with over 100,000 troops and nation building strategy. looking back, would not have been wiser had we diminished the role of heavy black prince, using small footprint strategy and not of the nation-building? we look like we over promised and under delivered. the lessons i carry around in my notebook which are overwhelming for me, having been someone involved in afghanistan since 2004, is the overwhelming importance of understanding the situation on the ground. i am still not satisfied with the level of our understanding where the rubber meets the road in a counterinsurgency approach. we do not adequately understand the language or the culture. many times we do not understand

the history. if you are an american soldier, the odds of going back to the same area in afghanistan is almost zero. when you enter a campaign like this, the overriding lesson for me is that we better understand what we are getting into and what it will take to be successful and effective. as soon as we begin one of these campaigns, we have to begin to invest immediately in the indigenous security forces. the level tolerant for our present and the numbers we've had recently will only go down over time. the smart investment would have been in the years from 2001- 2006, for example.

it would have been a heavier and more focused effort on afghan security forces. the would say that's approach we have tried in iraq and afghanistan, which only historians 25 years from now will be able to fairly evaluate, hasn't been resource intensive? i have heard some people described as trying to achieve revolutionary aims through colonial means. we need to think about that. even the colonial ways and means we have adopted were not suspicious. -- were not sufficient. talking about experiences with raising the troops. he said in frustration in a

letter to the continental congress, i spent six months in getting the troops ready and six months thinking about how to demobilize them. we could go on with a very long list. the second is that we had better need, before we plunged deep into iraq or against them, we should have more frank debate about ends, ways and means. do we need to go back and dustoff the weinberger doctrine again? we have an all volunteer force, which is absolutely magnificent. they have performed brilliantly. if we had a conscript army good enough to do the job, raise your

hand if you'd think we would have invaded iraq and 10 years after the invention in afghanistan, we would have had 100,000 troops there? if the answer to that is no, there might be something wrong with the republic if of the last 10 years we have been heavily engaged in war with volunteer forces that are not publicly owned by the american people. >> thank you. i am going to make enemies with this question. general, will unilateral u.s. counter terrorist actions known as the drone strikes continue,

and what actions will pakistan take if they do continue? >> our cooperation with pakistan against al qaeda leaders today in the border region continues. obviously no one in this conference has talked about the specifics. the reason they continue is that the u.s. and pakistan have a common interest. we have had no more active partner in the fight against al qaeda than the pakistanis. that common interest continues today and those levels of cooperation across the program also continue. i will let sherry speak for herself. herself. >> very quickly, i