failure to enact a cybersecurity bill is also a genuine danger posed by the automatic mindless cuts known as sequestration. and a commitment by congress to avoid the disastrous policy, the budget of every federal agents he represented here today, the department of homeland security, the national counterterrorism center, the fbi come in the very charged with attacking our nation from terrorism and other disasters will be flashed in an indiscriminate way that it are signs were more potentially

harming such vital programs as border security, intelligence analysis and the fbi's work. i have time and budget constraints require everyone to sacrifice and priorities to be sat and ways to be eliminated, we should ask where resources can be spent more effectively and what trade-offs should be made to balance the risk we face with the security we can afford. but we cannot afford, however is to weaken a homeland security structure that is helping to protect the citizens of this country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary collins. secretary napolitano correct thank you for being with us through at the time through >> thank you through lieberman

through like to thank director olson further partnership. mr. chairman, this is my 17th appearance before you. is my 44th here in overall since becoming president. i'm grateful for the tireless advocacy on behalf of dhs, not only during its initial creation, but in the time sense. senator, you have been one of our strongest supporters and our nation's security has benefited as a direct result. thank you for all you have done to make the country more secure. 11 years after the 9/11 attacks, america is stronger and more secure thanks to the work of men in women at dhs, many federal state, local, tribal, territorial and international partners and members of this committee. while the united states has made significant progress since the 9/11 attacks, we know threats from terror persist and

continually evolve. we faced direct threats from al qaeda. we face growing threats of other foreign-based terrorist groups, which are inspired by al qaeda ideology, such as hq ap and al-shabaab. we must address threats that are homegrown as well as those that originate abroad. is threats are not limited to any one individual, group or ideology and as we have seen taxes employed by terrorists can be as simple as a homemade bomb or as sophisticated as the biologic threat or coordinated cyberattack. while we deal with a number of threats and threat actors at any given time, three areas merit special sustained attention. the first is aviation. christmas day 2000 plot, the october 2010th air cargo thread in the aqa peapod earlier this year would have targeted a u.s. bound airliner with explosives made clear that commercial aviation remains a

target. terrace, especially aqap continue to seek ways to circumvent existing security measures. their methods and tactics are sometimes ingenious and increasingly sophisticated. a second threat area is cyberas both of you have mentioned. cyberthreats and incidents has increased significantly over the past decade. our nation confronts a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities in cyberspace. strong and rapidly adversary capabilities and limited threat and vulnerability analysis. we are committed to working with the congress to make sure the department and our nation has the tools and authorities to effectively confront rusty cyberspace. that includes minimum standards for the critical infrastructure. we remain hopeful that congress can pass strong cybersecurity legislation and i thank you, chairman lieberman and ranking

member collins for your leadership in this area. the third area of growing concern is homegrown violent extremism. within the context of u.s.-based back extremism, we know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al qaeda and individual extremists are actively seeking to recruit or inspire westerners to carry out attacks against western and united states targets. importantly however as recent events have demonstrated, we also don't violent extremism can be in conspired by other ideological beliefs. moreover, the attacks last week in libya that took the lives of ambassador stevenson three other americans in libya that took the lives of ambassador stevenson three other americans in libya that took the lives of ambassador stevenson three other americans war are, colorado the lives of ambassador stevenson three other americans war, colorado and oak creek wisconsin's demonstrate we must remain vigilant and prepared and certainly, our thoughts are with

those impacted by the senseless attacks. >> i have some questions about the implementation of this training change. various descriptions of it in response to the msn's of my fun --

[inaudible] [no audio] >> the will come to order. i apologize to running late, even though it doesn't appear as a lot is happening around here. i'm sorry for the competing process. i want to thank everyone for coming. i'm very, very pleased to

welcome robert stephen beecroft, was a career foreign service officer nominated by president obama to be our ambassador to iraq. and i think all of us on the committee are pleased the president has nominated somebody of high caliber, great experience, who is our defense server vanessa the deputy chief of mission in baghdad for the year and previously served as ambassador to jordan and executive assistant to secretary of state, colin powell and condoleezza rice. while america's war has ended in iraq, the struggle for iraq's future obviously has not ended. the violence is down, but al qaeda and iraq remains a very deadly foe and iraq may not capture the jays today headlined. then no one should make the mistake to somehow come to a conclusion that iraq doesn't

present extraordinary challenges. this administration has worked tirelessly to ensure that it doesn't become a forgotten front. we put in place a road mac on a browser to have issues. political, economic, educational, scientific and military. our bilateral partnership has potential to contribute, we believe to the stability in the middle east. but iraqi leaders have to decide for themselves what kind of country they hope to create. and as they do, we need to devote to the diplomatic energy and civilian resources necessary to help them succeed. ambassador beecroft, all of your skills are going to be called on in iraq and among the million

challenges you'll face, there are four other% like to call your attention. as a minor tragic death last week, deaths of ambassador chris stevens and his three colleagues in benghazi, we are reminded that our diplomats all around the world serve on the frontlines of some of the world's most dangerous place to. they do so at great risk to themselves and great personal sacrifice for their families. our embassy in baghdad, consulates in bozrah and herbal another security cooperation still number about 14,000 people. that makes it our largest nation in the world. we are going to need someone with ambassador beecroft management skills to write a summation and ensure that all the appropriate security measures are in place to keep our staff safe and secure.

iraq's leaders have a rare opportunity to consolidate their democracy and build a strong, durable institution or set of institutions that can hold the country together. but more will be required for the iraqi government. questions remain about whether iraqi leaders, including the prime minister aspires to represent a unified iraq in all of its diversity or whether they seek to cover neroli according to ethnic constituencies. to ensure the parliamentary elections of 2014 are free and fair, iraq's electoral commission must be professional, transparent and impartial. iraqi leaders across the political spectrum must also be willing to make tough compromises and put national priorities of our personal ambitions. it is no secret that we are at a moment of heightened sectarian tensions in the middle abilities. iraqi leaders should understand the best way to insulate

themselves from the horrific violence and syria is through meaningful political compromise and iraq. as they were to establish a more stable order, they need to redouble efforts to reach agreement on disputed boundaries, oil and not cure cook's final status. if progress is not made in defusing tensions, the window for a peaceful resolution of cure cook's another disputed territories may well close. baghdad tinkerbell must resolve differences to and honor into production contacts and to their credit the iraqis have made efforts to resolve issues related to revenue sharing, but the country still? an overarching legal framework for its oil industry. without this agreement, iraq will be unable to unleash its

full sector. for years, iraq has focused on its internal politics, but now must also begin to look outwards. it is not surprising that iraq seeks neighborly relations with iran, but the reports of a van used in iraqi airspace resupply the ruthless regime as shoveling. just this week, the commander of the islamic revolutionary guard corps acknowledged that iran is providing assistance and training to groups inside the area. begging the question of how else do any material might get into syria. this is a problem and it will only grow worse if it is not addressed. iraq's response to the situation in syria will also be an test case. the maliki government should play a constructive role in supporting initiatives that bring about a peaceful transition in syria. at a minimum, you should avoid

fanning the flames of violence. it will also be incumbent in other countries in the region, particularly the gulf cooperation council to recognize iraq as something other than an iranian proxy can work more proactively to normalize relations. i continue to believe that iraq has an opportunity to chart its own course as an alternative to the reigning model and demonstrate the vibrant potential of a truly mac shia majority democracy. that may just cause by reiterating that our embassy in baghdad is one of our most important today and what happens there is critical to our bilateral relationship, but also to all of our work in the middle east. this is not a time for delay. there is no substitute for having a confirmed ambassador in place and ready to hit the ground running, especially at this critical moment in the region. it is my hope to know if there's

nomination as rapidly as we can in the next 48 hours because they must have a confirmed ambassador in the u.k. or election of's responsibility where we leave here for the next six weeks and not as dense of. i strongly support ambassador beecroft's nomination and intend to work for that swift confirmation. so ambassador beecroft welcomed me today. i know we appreciate it and your thoughts on the way forward. senator lugar. >> thank you very much, mr. hearing. today is the first hearing since the attack acclaim for americas include ambassador quick stevens. the events in benghazi and ongoing threats to the dangers and difficulties of performing diplomatic missions. it is almost impossible to be an effective american diplomat without exposing themselves to

risk. in some countries these risks can be at times coming at exceptional americans like ambassador stevens continued to volunteer to these assignments. we are grateful that you continue to volunteer commissary. chris's life and work resonate especially, not merely because he was a talented diplomat, but also because he's one of us. the staff in 2006 and 2007 sat directly behind where i'm sitting now. he stacked hearings on iraq and other middle east topics in exactly six years ago today, he held staff a hearing on iran. he stayed in close touch with friends here as he did at every stage in his career. we will miss our friend dearly. our thoughts go out to his

family. although the death of ambassador stevens and three others as a blow to the state department and our country, and also underscored the importance of our diplomacy and difference that an ambassador can make. all of us had read accounts of chris stevens extraordinary service and it's clear that he was personally instrumental and faint in the united states interest in libya. we need good ambassadors at their posts providing energetic leadership to their embassies teams. i appreciate ambassador beecroft's courage and commitment on taking on an extremely difficult expand that has been complicated in the middle east. he has been functioning as chief admissions for several months and i believe we should move fast to confirm him as ambassador to iraq. his experience with managing large embassies is socially critical given the u.s. enmeshed

in iraq is the biggest in the world. the operation includes several outlining facilities in baghdad about 10 security operations training sites and consulates in basra and erbil. employees number approximately 1600 u.s. direct hires. 240 iraqis, thousands. fedex said the sunni shia divide that is was her secret conflict. politically iraq remains fractured amongst the carrion lines. those divisions appear to have deepened in the last year. iraq's stability depends on it being integrated with responsible neighbors and the world community. its long-term future is on the human rights, democracy and human law. the political fragmentation and corruption also present fundamental challenges to its

economy. the world bank report analyzes the ease of doing business and protection of property rights across 183 economies ranked iraq 164 is in 2012, down five spots from his 2011 ranking. despite prime minister maliki's claim that iraq is at them for business, most interested investors and trade partners are challenged to get a visa or a definitive answer from the government about tender bidding processes. according to the world bank, iraq's lasher implemented a policy that made it more difficult for iraqis themselves to do business. i look forward to your ambassador beecroft insights in the security situation as well as the use of the prospects for economic improvement and political stability. the lat reports on the current

status the administration needs to eliminate the united states intentions in iraq for the long term. some significant times housing has occurred, the iraq operations are enormously expensive. how does the administration defying u.s. goals in iraq? what are the prospects for achieving these goals and what resources will be required over the long-term? and looks very to your testimony and i thank the chairman for this hearing. >> thank you very much, senator lugar and thanks for your personal recollections of chris stevens. we do appreciate it very much. the ambassador you can tell is of considerable interest and we look forward to your comments to ask him questions. >> thank you, chairman kerry, senator lugar and members of the committee, to matter to appear before you as the president's nominee to serve as united states ambassador to the public

of iraq. and deeply grateful to the president for this opportunity and i would have to submit my full statement for the record is >> without objection placed in the record. i would like to talk about the perished, raves who represent the best of the united states have my thoughts and prayers remain with their families and friends. i spent most of my career working in the middle east increasing my assignment and syria, saudi arabia and as ambassador to jordan. for much of my career been immersed in iraqi issues from serving on the iraq desk in washington d.c. to most recently serving as deputy chief admissions and now the affairs of baghdad. i've had the honor to work with an extraordinarily talented hard-working collegial team come in the best in the business and experience. today the united states is engaging with an involving iraq. the country is now emerging from over 50 years of isolation, fragmentation and more. a strong relation with the democratically elected

government. this relation is codified in the u.s. framework agreement which lays out a shared vision and a concrete common roadmap for bilateral class economics, justice, diplomacy, education. through this agreement we support and assist iraqis build a united democratic countries that can play a constructive role in the region. of course challenges abound is not easy. sectarian frictions remain strong and often threatened to derail negotiated accords. it unsettles iraq's oil exports and the council of representatives is through provincial elections scheduled for early 2013. tensions with turkey, conflict within syria and iraq's relationship with iran off the anxiety and complicate our relationships with iraq. nevertheless, developments i have seen in iraq give a reason

for optimism. they have all confessions and ethnicities are remain to solving differences politically incited to violence. the oil production this plan passed 3 million barrels per day, and level had not achieved for for more than three decades. u.s. commercial interests are returning to iraq and iraq is sitting studying the states in increasing numbers. these are signs of positive change in the united states retains a vital and continuing role in the process. if confirmed i pledge to continue working with allies across the iraqi political spectrum to strengthen the democratic institution. i also pledge to continue engaging with the iraqi government on a wide range to expand economic growth, by corruption and protect human rights. if confirmed, i assure you my number one priority will be the safety of embassy personnel and u.s. citizens living in iraq.

nothing is more important to the president, secretary of state or to me personally. i will also work to ensure we have the right personnel and resources to successfully carry out our mission. i am continuing the glidepath process with ambassador this year as part of that effort we make significant cuts and will further reduce footprint without compromising our security. we continue to work towards a more appropriate posture in iraq while even more effectively pursuing policy objective. it is a tremendous honor to have nominated by president obama to serve as u.s. ambassador to a back pitch i be confirmed he will seek to expand and deepen collaboration with iraq and its people and secure our vital interests. i look forward to collaborating closely with you and your staff and i urge you to visit iraq to see the important work we are doing there. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i welcome your questions.

>> thank you, mr. ambassador. can you share with me the issue i raised about the iranians using iraqi airspace in order to support a sod? what are we doing? what if you do doing if anything to try to limit that use? >> i personally engaged on the highest levels of my colleagues at baghdad have engaged on this and are continuing to engage in every single visitor representing the u.s. government from the senate. recently three visitors to administration officials has raised it with the iraqis and made very clear we find this unacceptable and we find of unhelpful and detrimental to the region into iraq and of course first and foremost to the syrian people. it is something that needs to stop them we are pressing and will continue to press until it is stopped.

>> while aiming it may stop when it is too late. if so many people have treated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact, that sort of alarms me a little bit and sends a signal to me that maybe we should make samovar support contingent upon some kind of appropriate response. it just seems completely inappropriate or are trying to help build democracy is, support them, put american lives on the line commitment in the country and a working against her interests overtly come against their interests you i might add. >> senator, i share your concerns 100%. with your permission on that clear to the iraqis which are said to me today and you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and cooperation on issues that date. >> well, i think it would be very hard.

around here think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways. so i wish you would delay that obviously anything members of the committee would want to do so. can you tell us with respect to the safety issues, personnel and our citizens there, are you taking extra steps now? are there additional initiatives in place as a result of what has happened in the last week or two? >> for sometime now and all the more so in light of recent events we have taken a very cautious and careful look at our security on a regular basis. we have our own security at the embassy. we think it is sizable, robust and we are very confident it is what we need at this time. at the same time, we're fully engaged with the iraqi officials, both political and security officials at the most senior level to ensure they give

us the cooperation we feel we need and so far they have done that. their pledge to protect us and we are doing everything to ensure they keep to that pledge and we meet our part by ensuring we are as safe as can be on our terms. at the same time, we enjoy advantages. the embassy is located inside the international zone. the green zone as you know and are a number of check points closely guarded getting into and it's not a place for demonstrations usually take place. >> what is your action of the people at events? >> so far it's been quite muted. there have been demonstrations throughout the country, but they have been low-level and there has been nothing specifically threatening. there have been statements that is at issue and some political

leaders should examine their relationship with the united states because of his film. but on the whole, we get good cooperation and continue to engage an iraqi officials are meeting with us. >> increasingly we are hearing more and total and other reports about the increase authoritarianism of the maliki government and the political system itself perhaps becoming less democratic and so forth. can you share your perceptions of that with us and how you see this trendline moving? >> iraq as a democracy. it does face a lot of issues challenging to that democracy. it is fragile in many ways. we are working constantly with all sides, but the prime minister, with his party, his flock, other blogs and other parties across the political

spectrum to ensure democratic institutions in the democratic process is strengthened. in short but we are doing is pushing the mall to engage them pursue interest in the legislative process in an independent reform process they have agreed to. in other words, use the system to achieve what you need to achieve rather than look outside the system and make it fall apart. >> mr. ambassador, i remember sitting downstairs on the ground floor secretary condoleezza rice testified. and i remember her saying to us physically, well, we are just a few weeks away from signing an agreement on the division of the oil and having a global oil agreement for iraq. i guessed about five years later now, maybe six. i don't remember the precise timing. still no agreement. still the problem with the kurds, still the problem of sunni, minority voice et cetera.

there's a certain skepticism now about whether or not the current government actually intends to have a diverse, pluralistic representative government or whether we are moving towards another form of sick. division here. i think a lot of people are worried about it. can you share your perspective about that? >> guest: you're right about the hydrocarbon loss. we think next iraq's constitution is one of the most important monster to go into place in the country. we are pushing it very aggressively. most recently, ambassador carlos pascual who looks after energy issues therein a representative from the department of energy came to iraq, met with iraqi officials. deputy secretary bill byrnes followed up last week with a visit and push the same issue. we are pointing out that this is a way to unify and unite the country, which is what they need to do at this time.

i am pleased to be able to say there has been some subsequent engagement by the iraqis on oil issues and some discussion of restarting negotiations on the hydrocarbons law and we are going to continue to push them in that direction. it's a positive trend on a positive sign most recently from the regional government were in baghdad only a few days ago, meeting with oil baron by all reports what we hear and see in the press, they did make some progress and are moving forward on that. so while it's not the hydrocarbon what felt, these are issues which should smooth relations that allow for the hydrocarbons law to go forward in the future. >> senator lugar. >> thank you. >> but they just follow on senator kerry's questioning because what he and you have described as a country, but without the hydrocarbons law,

which was anticipated so that the oil and basic revenue for a good part of managing the government never came into being and therefore deals have been made by kurds on occasion with companies outside, disorders preceding with or without the hydrocarbon mom and therefore some dispersion of the wealth of the country, quite apart from some questions about how the kurds fit in to this iraq situation. as you point out two important monster hydrocarbon, but the constitution basically. the question therefore the iraqis must have come assertive getting back to testimony, least year before this committee in which some people were advocating really three different countries where we have to recognize really the reality is that the iraq as

opposed to having this fiction that there was one country and somehow order another the constitutional framework representing the three major groups and others have come into being. how does the country operate given these divisions, granted mr. maliki has authority, that from time to time, there are reports of terrorism and iraq against iraqis quite apart from the current situation, which is hard to describe. and you mentioned these are still to happen, but how did they move towards happening at all? is there an impetus towards the unity and the country towards cohesion that we should say given time, this is going to work out. or maybe the other way given the

ties with iran, whatever they may be what the problems of the shiites and sunnis everywhere. is this really a solid country? >> thank you, senator lugar. yes, there's a solid basis we continue to see what is encouraging is the iraqis continue to resolve their differences through dialogue, through negotiation. so when they do have disputes, which they have frequently to be perfectly honest they find ways. our job is to continue to encourage that and continue to support them as they do at point out ways for they could do it more effectively. hydrocarbon fuzzy point out is one way of doing that comes strengthening the legislative process is another way of

focusing on key lives that they need to pass as part of the legislative process. for example, the law of the higher the carol commission, these are things that help unify the country over time. right now i think it is headed in the right direction, but with a new button the trendline. we need to keep the trendline going and try to minimize the downs. >> is your counsel appreciated? our enthusiasm in the united states of course as a unified whole iraq? >> i think by and large rear this in into very closely. most iraqis will save the united states continues to have a role to play in iraq and i think most iraqis are committed to the same thing we are committed to, which is a unified, federal and democratic iraq. >> now you mention the relative security of our embassy and what have you. ..

nor could our government since it's our embassy, but what is the future, simply of all of the real estate, all of the responsibility. they are huge and this is going to be an ongoing debate i am certain in the congress as we come to the budget problems in this country. >> thank you very much. we recognize that this is an issue. we started with an embassy that will staff to address all

possible contingencies to follow up on the wonderful work the u.s. military had done in iraq. since that time and again starting with ambassador jeffrey and something i personally am continuing to be very closely involved in and we will pursue, we are calling it a glidepath exercise where we are looking at what our objectives are and how we are resourcing staff to meet those objectives and what we have found is we can prioritize and focus our mission and will continue to do that on what we really need to accomplish and as we do that we are we are able to reduce personnel. since the beginning of the year we have reduced personnel by more than 2000. we are now somewhere between 13 and 14,000 personnel in iraq down from over 60. facilities, we have given back in the last couple of days facilities we had in kirkuk and an airbase up there and facilities we had in baghdad for a police training center and we have another facility in the next few days which will be back

in baghdad so we are reducing notches to number personnel but we are reducing the number of pieces of property we occupy and use and we are very mindful of the cost it takes to support the mission in iraq and i am personally am reducing those costs by focusing our mission on what we really need to achieve. and reshaping it so that is done. >> we congratulate you on your service and we are hopeful we can get action on this nomination very swiftly. you have served their country well during these controversial weeks and months ahead. thank you very much. >> senator corker. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for calling this hearing and thank you mr. ambassador for your willingness to serve and what you have been doing there and for your earlier comments along with senator lugar regarding chris stevens. i was just sitting here thinking i was listening to senator

kerry's comments and over the last decade, there has been quite a turn of events in iraq and for iran over the last decade. i mean, 10 years ago their major enemy was right next door in iraq. today they are flying airplanes over iraq into serious to help one of their allies and i know that you mentioned that everyone at every level has talked about this and i know that you say you will continue to do that. what i would like to hear is what the responses when you say you would like for him to cooperate with us in our interest. what does he exactly say in response to our efforts there? >> thank you senator. the response is typically to express a lot of concern about events in syria and to where they are very clear that both the prime minister and other iraqi officials, that they have

no interest in seeing the current government continue the regime. that they are no friends of that regime and that regime has been talked to them in the past and allow terrorists to come into iraq and the institutions and the people of iraq. what they are interested in seeing though is that there is a clear outcome in syria that protects their interests and they are having a little trouble seeing that. >> but what about the airspace issue? why are they continuing to cooperate with iran in that effort? what do they specifically tell you regarding that? i know we have talked with him but what is her response? >> they say they engage with all parties may want to allow their airspace, there landed ground to be useto transport weapons so they have instructed they will not allow flights and. >> they are convinced that the flights are not hearing armament to the area?

>> they are taking the manifest at face value and what we are urging them to do is evertz disapprove the flights or per u.n. resolutions asked them to land there. >> they are taking their manifest at face value? >> so again we are pressing them to have the aircraft either disapproved the flights or have the land be inspected which is their right to due. >> i really think it does speak to our continuing role player and by the way again i thank you for your service there therein by now it's a heavy lift. when senator barrasso and i first got here, which was five and a half years ago roughly, five years ago for him, we were talking about the hydrocarbon at that time and i remember sitting in iraq as he was running back and forth try to work out some type of hydrocarbon law that time, still nothing is happened and there is no constitution. so i think it does beg the question if we have a situation

where obviously our national interest in syria is very different than what iraq is allowing to happen. i would like for you to point to some of the things that our involvement there has caused them to do that is in our national interest and what our continuing role should be in iraq? >> let me point to -- thank you very much. one particular example. iraq recently passed a 3 million barrels-per-day threshold production of oil. this is certainly something getting more about oil and the market 2.5 million barrels are exported. the rest is used to -- domestically. this is something that is in our interest and in the world's interest. >> in china's interest in everybody's interest, right? >> that's correct but it's particularly in our interest of their sanctions on iran and iran's production -- iraq's reduction helps maintain stable oil markets across the world.

see you might imagine it's very much in iraq's interest to. >> guess it is but at the same time they are under pressure from others not to do this but they are doing it anyway and it's something we work closely with them on so i take your point but i did want to fly back. >> but i think it's a serious question. we have ambassadors, really good ambassadors and i'm sure you were going to be equally as good but we have had the best of the best in iraq and as you look at the things that we have encouraged them to do, it's really difficult. i can't really remember anything of significance that our involvement there through diplomatic relations has called them to do that is in our national interest. if you could just point to one, i mean selling 3 billion barrels of oil is and there are interest. it would be cutting their nose off to spite their face not to do that so i wouldn't say that's in our interest. so what is it that we shape

their does -- this diplomatically that has been in our national interest? >> certainly in our national interest i believe that we have a unit guide productive constructive role in the region. iraq recently hosted back in the end of march the arab league summit for all the arab leaders and the heads of state in 22 delegations were present for that. again designed that it is a unified and peaceful iraq, not an iraq that is fractured and broken up. it continues to battle al qaeda very strongly. this is something also that's in our interest, the fight against terrorists and we will continue to work with a lot of things like this. this is our most important priority in my view and we are getting a degree of success. >> aren't there some border linkages right now between iraq and syria that are allowing more

al qaeda to flow into syria at present? i mean is isn't that is that initiate? >> the iraqis have dispatched a whole number of troops to the border to protect the border to stop the flow either way into or out of. i read in this morning's news for example that they had killed and i think the three terrorists attempting to cross over aqi, into iraq from syria so that they are there and they are trying to protect the borders and again they are trying to stop the flow of weapons on the ground and personnel, either way. >> i know my time is up and i think you and the three questioner so far. first of all we thank you for your service and i do think you will be approved very quickly and we thank you for coming to this hearing. we know that your work is very difficult and we are dealing with folks that obviously, as

you would expect, are looking after their own interests first. but, i think you're going to continue to get pressured by folks here and other places to see the results there with our diplomatic actions. i know they're asking for aid and i do think it is going to be coming and is becoming under increased pressure and i think people are going to want to see it resolved so i thank you for your willingness to take on this role. i thank you for asking, answering in an honest way our questions but i think there are going to be anymore and as you take this on, i hope the government of iraq understands also that we would like to see some movement in a positive direction on the issues that have been sitting around for a long, long time and left unaddressed. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> ambassador i have to go to another meeting and i apologize to you. senator casey is going to cheer

and he will be recognized as the next question are anyway. but i just want to wish you well well and as i said we will try to move ss as we can i want to thank you for taking on this tough task and thank your family at the same time for their contribution to this effort. we really appreciate it. thank you very much. senator casey. >> thank you, sir. we are grateful for your willingness to serve here again and we appreciate that. i have a couple of questions to start with that involve the overflight, the overflights over iraq and as a predicate to that i wanted to ask you about your sense of what we can do to be as vigilant as we can. a number of weeks ago i chaired a hearing of the iranian influence in the region for terrorism in the region and one of our witnesses at that hearing

was ambassador jim jeffrey, and as a predicate for my question, i wanted to quote from something ambassador jeffrey said and i asked him about iranian influence in iraq. he said the following, and i'm putting. he said at present our overall strategy in iraq including stemming strategic iranian dominance of the country has been successful despite the massive cut in our resources committed. that is a policy we should continue bearing always in mind that this success is fragile and should not be placed at risk for wider policies. iranian pressure increases, we have the tools to counter it, unquote. that is what ambassador jeffrey said at the time, not too long ago. so it's clear that iran has brought to bear great pressure on iraq as it relates to allowing that airspace for the overflight.

becknell specifically, what tools do we have to deal with that problem and i know you spoke to this in response to questions already this morning, but just to put it even finer point if you can do that. >> thank you senator. i will answer what i can in this setting and i am sure that there will be a classified meeting if necessary. but what i want to say is that our major tool is to work with the iraqis. i think starting point that they have their own self-interest that all groups in iraq recognize they have their own interests and those are necessarily iranian interest and while there is overlap or some shared interests, on the whole, iraqis take the approach that they are a sovereign democratic nation and they are independent of iran and their interest happened to coincide that's fine but if their interest don't coincide what we see is that they follow their own interest

and they don't succumb to pressure. one example of this is the oil example that i just gave. what we need to do is again strengthened this democracy. make sure it's not a house divided, which is easily influenced by the house that is united and strong by getting all parties to play in the political process constructively and we need to work with them to show them that you know we will support them in pursuing their own interests, that we will counterbalance the influence is coming from outside to the extent we can and we can play a helpful role that will have a strong relationship with them that supports them. >> i appreciate that because as you, and i have great confidence you will be firm and -- you'll be confirmed and as you assume your posting i hope that you make it very clear to the iraqi leadership that we have great concerns about this. i think people in both parties here in the house and the senate

have concerns first and foremost about the iranian nuclear program and preventing them from getting nuclear weapons capabilities. this is my position and is a widely shared belief or point of view but in addition to that even if there was not this nuclear threat, the threat that they pose to the region and beyond is of paramount importance to us. i hope that you continue to reiterate that position. i wanted to ask u.s. well about the politics of iraq. we sometimes don't have a chance to spend a lot of time, but i was struck when i was there in july, i guess it was july of 2010, senators shaheen and i and senator from delaware, the three of us were there -- the visit happened to overlap the visit by the vice president said we had a moment, probably

about a two hour window where we could actually sit with him and he had just come from a series of meetings with the various iraqi officials, trying to work out the politics, the difficult management of that and doing everything he could to bring the sides together. you know a lot better than i that it's one thing to have political or ideological differences but it's another thing but it has its origins in ethnicity and all kinds of other divisions. so it's particularly difficult to bring the sides together. now the concern, and i was also struck by how capable the vice president was in dealing with that because he spent a lot of time with all these players. there is still a real concern now that those policies haven't worked out as well as we had hoped and in particular there is a concern or maybe an allegation might be too strong a word,

prime minister maliki is becoming more and are authoritarian. i want to get your sense of that and your sense of the overall politics because that of course will be the underpinning of the progress. they can't make progress unless they can manage those political differences so i want to get your sense of that and maybe what you could do to further demands those areas of cooperation or consensus. >> thank you. there clearly are divisions within iraq but what we see and what is encouraging is that the parties, when they have disputes or they have differences, that at at the end of the day, they come together to talk and negotiate. and they continue to function as a democracy and continue to work in the legislature, the council of ministers and outside in the informal processes or unofficial

processes to work out their differences and find ways forward. it's oftentimes a slow protracted process and certainly doesn't move at the pace we would like to see you are with the efficiency we would like to see that as i see it our role as large as to continue to encourage and be helpful in pointing ways forward in the ways things might be done and the way they might be able to compromise or reach consensus on issues. and then to be as supportive as possible and helping them avoid any backsliding on those agreements and to find ways to help consolidate. we will continue to to do that as best we can but again i would like to reiterate the encouraging thing is that iraq has not fallen apart but it has felt together and they're certainly are forces that would like to pull it apart both internally and externally but the iraqis themselves, much to their credit, have found ways to continue to work with each other and continue to resolve their

disputes. i don't want to minimize the importance of these disputes and they are very serious ones that are of great concern to particular groups in iraq or to all iraqis but yet at the end of the day they find a way to step back from the precipice, to talk and find a way forward and will continue to work on that to push them in those directions in the most positive, constructive and encouraging way we can. >> my time is up and senator rubio. >> congratulations and thank you for your service. i too anticipate there will be little if any objection to your nomination and the want to get you to work quickly so let me touch on three subjects. first the discussions about iran and in your opinion does that influence extend to the judiciary and i'm particularly concerned about obviously the ex-vice presidents trial now in turkey but others as well.

growing evidence that perhaps at least allegations the prime minister and others have manipulated the judiciary for the purposes of pursuing their political enemy. do we have concerns that iran and iraq has extended the judiciary as well? >> thank you senator. i see concerns across-the-board that any country, iran or others, do not play an overbearing or overly influential role particularly a negative one and iraq. we work closely with the judiciary in iraq in the legal community. we do everything we can to ensure that their support for the rule of law programs and so far what we see is a largely functioning judiciary back, while i can't give it a 100% endorsement as perfect, no country has a perfect judiciary. it is something that again

continues to function and will continue to help it function better to the extent we can. >> my second concern is about the well-being of the democratic national party. have expressed their concerns about the way he has been treated and i believe now in the northern region and i guess he has been allowed to enter under protection but i read a series of accounts about how different types of protection made a miserable mess and back that and telling him to leave baghdad. have we expressed our concern about his well-being and our concern about how he has been treated? >> i'm sorry senator, i missed miss the main. >> the leader of the iraq democratic nation party. >> let me just say first and foremost we have concerns about human rights across-the-board and we will raise those concerns at every opportunity as well as rule of law concerns to make sure everyone is treated fairly and freely.

on this specific individual i'm going to have to go back toward answering get back to you as quickly as i can. >> so i complain outcome in addition to being the leader of the democratic nation party in iraq and also a staunch ally of the united states, courageous and any instances a proponent on behalf of the society, basically everything we hoped the region will become and tested for. i encourage you to look into this case. is actually well-documented and pretty well-known that he had to leave the northern region for protection because of the way the current government has treated him. i think it sends a terrible message to moderate reformers in the region. the u.s. is silent to their well-being and i think it is disconcerting quite frankly that there is not more awareness about his plight. let me just add to that, what is your view of our relationship with the regional government in the north and the kurdish regional government? there has been accounts about how well they have developed and

certainly it's a safer region and the rest of their rack and is certainly progressed economically. how is her relationship with them and how you envision our relationship with them moving forward as far as your own aspirations etc.? >> thank you senator. on the first case i will look into the case personally and we will get back to you and your staff. regarding the north, we are very support of the autonomous region in the north and you are absolutely right it has surfaced in many ways and in many ways sets an example for not just the country but the region hanway can be. we will continue to support them and work with them as part of the unified federal iraq and we have the best of relations with them and we will continue to have those relations. i have heard concerns expressed at the closer we get to them the more we risk alienating the prime minister. the less cooperative he may be with us. do you share that view? >> we have excellent relations also server the prime minister

and we are going to continue keeping those so long as people understand this is part of the unified federal iraq. we will work with the north should not be objectionable and so far has not it is not it is not an objectionable. >> i heard some commentators say you have to be careful how we deal with him and not to veer too closely to them because it may alienate and i don't want to put words in your mouth but i think what you're saying is that a sure way of reaching out to them and having a close relationship with them. you don't view it as a zero-sum game. you think you can have a relationship with both? >> that is absolutely right. >> okay, thank you. >> senator casey. >> senator udall, you're the chairman here. you just arrived and i want to make sure you are okay for questioning. >> i'm ready to to go hear. >> senator demint is ready so i want to warn you.

>> thank you for being here and we very much appreciate your service, especially in light of all the things we have seen over the next, over the last couple of weeks, and so we are pleased that you are willing to serve. according to the special inspector general for iraq construction in its report of this year, the inspector said quote anti-government forces continue to target prominent iraqis for assassination. 32 senior government officials were killed from april to july of this year. not only our government officials being targeted but judges, military offices being targeted by assassins. how have these tensions impacted governance in iraq and are people becoming reluctant to participate in the system and if so how does this impact the

long-term political health of iraq? >> thank you senator. this is certain -- violence is certainly at the top of our concerns in iraq and we are doing a good thing we can in confronting violence and reducing and holding those responsible for it accountable. while a serious threat we have not seen it keeps iraqis from continuing to work the system and not just that but the iraqis are going out in the street and participating in normal life on the street. while there may be some examples of iraqis opting not to serve most iraqis are more than half the to serve and take government judicial positions and to vigorously carry out their jobs and responsibilities. that is something we will encourage and something we work with iraqis on in the past in protecting their officials and continue to do that so these people can carry out their jobs safely without fear of retribution or assassination. >> some of this as you know has been attributed to al qaeda in

iraq and i was just wondering about your assessment of that and how much are they involved and is very resurgence there are? how big of an impact are they having? >> you are absolutely right. al qaeda is a huge concern. they continue to perpetrate violence in iraq. the iraqis are focused on it. fortunately we are finding that the violence has not led to the things that al qaeda is hoping to achieve. it's not waiting to sectarian conflict. it's not undermining the government in a way that people have lost complete confidence in it. at something that again is a major concern that we need to help iraqis deal with than they have asked for help and we are going to help them as much as possible. yes it's an absolute concern and it needs to be dealt with. >> and you believe that the iraqi military and intelligence

services are focused on that and they are putting their maximum efforts there are? >> they are focused. they have good people that are working this issue. we talk to them regularly about it and they assure us that they are strong commitment. what they have also asked us for frankly is assistance, assistance in providing information that we have and we are doing that. and assistance in providing equipment. we are also doing that as well. >> ambassador, i know it's not on the same level as afghanistan but corruption is still a very big issue. i am just wondering what do you believe they have done to effectively deal with this and are there efforts that you would take when you get there to kind of move this whole effort along?

how are we dealing with the corruption issue? >> the corruption is a large issue and i think transparency international's last report had iraq ranked eighth in the world on corruption, not something you want to be. the iraqis are aware of this and they -- the government is focused on it and leave people in the embassy that work on corruption issues and engagement regularly. what we do point out to them is they are perfectly aware of that this hurts the things they want or diminishes the opportunity for those things, business investment first and foremost. people find it not just a difficult environment to operate and because of other reasons but because of corruption by and large makes it very difficult and discourages businesses from coming forward. we will continue to work with them to try to deal with the problem and improve it. >> one of the major criticisms

that has been leveled against our participation was the signing of the agreement, the agreement between iraq and the united states as we left. do you have any thoughts on that in terms of where we are today and being able to function effectively with them? has that set back our efforts? >> let me start by saying the u.s. military did fantastic work in iraq and i think most iraqis today recognize that and appreciate it. let me also say we put in place a strategic framework agreement which we are working on, working through with the iraqis to engage on a whole range of issues, everything from justice to diplomacy to economic issues, education issues and this is the framework we are pursuing to ensure that we are fully engage with them on issues that are of

concern to us and also a concern to them where we can make some traction. i think if we continue to see this function well and it continues to make progress, the progress we want to achieve and we want to see iraq achieve. >> thank you very much and once again thank you for your service. senator udall. >> senator demint. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. beecroft i also thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve in iraq. we have got a lot of our blood and treasure invested and frankly you have encouraged me today and i've heard you talk a a and you answered a lot of questions i've had because i've heard a number of folks say iraq is unraveling, that it is just coming apart. the fact that we didn't leave establishing -- stabilizing force in iraq makes it virtually impossible for us to impact the policy in some the things of said suggested otherwise.

i have to admit i'm a little cynical because over the last 10 years i've gotten a number of reports that were very rosy and we would find out that wasn't the case at all. you seem to be very credible and knowledgeable so i am encouraged by what you said. i will just ask a few questions as a follow up and you answered some of these to some degree. clearly there is a growing anti-american sentiment throughout the middle east and how pervasive is that in iraq? do you think the manipulated range that we have seen in other countries, cannot take hold in iraq? >> thank you senator. we have seen reactions recently in iraq where there have been demonstrations. they have not been of the sites or severity we have seen in other countries and iraqi government has handled matters and may very common peaceful way

as well. it hasn't this seemed for the most part i think from what i have seen to inflame things. going to the larger question you asked that there is increasing goodwill towards the united states and iraq and in increasing recognition of the possible -- positive role the united states military is played there. it's our job to capitalize on that and make the most of it and build a partnership and a relationship with iraq. i don't want to minimize the difficulties that the iraqis faced and that we also face but i do want to stress that there are signs that are encouraging. there are rays of light and hope and we will continue to work to increase the number of encouraging signs and increase the successes and a large part of that is building the partnership that we have with iraq and making it stronger. this is the platform [the

excellent work of the u.s. military. >> you mentioned house divided and this question has already been asked but we have seen a number of reports that both sunni arabs and kurds are fearful of a power grab by the prime minister, some sectarian division going on there. how serious is that in you mentioned that it seems to be working out in a democratic way rather than a violent way. is that the good news that there is division but it's being worked out? >> sir, yes you are absolutely correct that is the good news. there are divisions in our disputes and there are disagreements, interest-bearing from issue to issue but will we see as iraqis continue to talk and more importantly they continue to channel their concerns through the democratic

process and handle things as part of the democratic process so when it comes to let's say recently there was talk of a no-confidence vote, again that no-confidence vote allowed the iraqi constitution and again it was a democratic procedure which people were looking at and considering. it wasn't something that was outside the framework. >> just one other question. just a religious freedom, you mentioned human rights. we get a lot of reports particularly from the christian missionaries and the religious freedom is not being protected by the iraqi government. is this a priority affairs or something they tried to sweep under the rug? is there hope that the different faiths can operate within iraq? >> i think there is hope.

that said, it is one of the concerns that the embassy and the state department and others are very focused on in iraq. we received a thing since 2008, three directives from congress to spend $10 million each, from the $30 million. we have actually spent $72 million pursuing religious freedom and looking for ways to protect minority religious groups in iraq. we are going to continue to do that. we engage with them regularly and while the iraqis have shown not only do they have laws protecting religious freedom and minority religions, they have taken steps in the past in response to attacks to protect for example christian churches and when there are holidays with minority religious groups they will increase the security presence to protect these people. these are things we need to continue to encourage and to see expand so that all the people

can practice their religions freely. >> thank you and i look forward to meeting with you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator demint. i may be the last questioner so you can get a sense of the light at the end of the tunnel for the hearing. really, two lines of questioning, one on -- which we know our a program that allows iraqis who have helped american forces, health care efforts in iraq to have their visas expedited and as you know better than i, these are people with uncommon courage who were of great assistance to us. they obviously live under the threat of death or something very serious in terms of the threat to their safety. i realize that as well as these have been expedited, the good

news about the numbers, i am told that in fiscal year 2012, that there was not enough expediting bad the u.s. submitted more in 2012 than we did in 2011. that is encouraging but there is about luck and i want to have you just address kind of where we are with that and how many are in the pipeline and how you can, upon assumption of your new duties, can you move that forward? >> thank you senator. this is an issue that we at the embassy working with washington are very focused on. i don't have off the top of my head and i may have to go check it, the number the pipeline right now but you are absolute write the numbers in 2012 have exceeded the numbers from 2011 already. we are going to continue to do everything we can to process visas quickly as possible and as we get the approval from washington we will expedite them. let me also assure you that what

i have seen happen at the embassy is something we will continue to do this when their particular individuals that are suffering or under a particular threat and the case is urgent, we go out of her way. our consular section has gone out of its way to make sure these people get immediate service as fast as possible and make sure they are is reassured as possible and we stay in touch with them and get back to them and do everything we can to help these people are good as you rightly point out they have risked their lives on our behalf and we need to do everything we can to pay that. >> thank you and finally with regard, and they know you addressed this and it's been raised before but syrian refugees, i think there are so many of us that even as we introduce as i have legislation to try to move forward in terms of the humanitarian other systems to this area -- the syrian people we have a real

concern about the news in the last couple of days about denying, denying men coming in and allowing women and children and in one instance and i think there's a real concern and you can understand how difficult it is for the iraqis to be able to handle a lot of new, a lot of new refugees coming in. i remember way back in 2007 when i was in my first visit to iraq, when he went to jordan, place you are familiar with, about the number of iraqi refugees in jordan and how big a number that was, tens of thousands. so it's difficult problem to manage but i guess i would ask you, in a broad way, if you could assess the iraqi refugee policies as it relates to syrian

refugees and maybe in particular how many if you know that number or a ballpark figure on that, and also what kind of support they have and what they will expect when they get there and what kinds of challenges are there as broadly and specifically as you can. >> the particulars i said early this morning and i check these regular, there were a little over 27,000 iraqi refugees now in jordan. the majority of those, of roughly 23,000 are in the north and these tend to be syrian kurds who have come across into the kurdish area of iraq. zvi you said 26? >> 27,000, roughly 20,000 total. 26,000 of those are in the north and a little over 4000 are and the south or the center of the country. they come across largely at border crossings between syria and iraq on the iraqi side known

as al qaim and the ones there at the border crossing has been closed. only two days ago it reopened. this was very encouraging and something that we have been urging the iraqis to do for some time. i think a closed around the middle of august but led in 121 people yesterday. we expect more to be let in today. the iraqis have been constructing camps for refugees, but a lot of them that are crossed are still in iraq to government institutions or with friends, family and others. what we are doing as a u.s. government is we have contributed heavily to unhcr and its records in the region. i can break down specifically the amount of money that goes to iraq. we don't know that, but we do work closely with unhcr and are in touch with them on a daily basis about this issue and we are inviting all possible support for their efforts to help address the refugee influence into iraq.

>> but do you feel and i know this this is kind of a generalization, but do you feel positive about the iraqi governments, the government or other support systems, their capacity to handle the inflow gord you think that there are some pretty significant challenges? >> i think they can handle the inflow if they focus on it and prioritize it and we have seen evidence that they have done that at times and they continue to do it. this is something we engage regularly with them on and something are visitors from the administrations and most recently the senate have engage with them on as well. this is an important issue. many iraqis were refugees in syria and this is something that many iraqis see as something positive they can do for syrians and we will continue to work with them to make sure they do the right thing and they have

the support they need that they do at the right way. we will continue to work with unhcr. so that is out there able to assist and provide support to the refugees that come in. >> mr. ambassador we want to thank you for your testimony here today and your presence and answering our questions but also in a much more significant way thank you for your commitment to the country. this is a tough assignment even for someone who has spent a lot of time there as you have and we know you do well. i know i will and a lot of members of this committee will do everything we can to move your nomination as fast as possible so that we can get you started so thank you for your commitment and that of your family and unless there is anything further, we are adjourned but i don't have a gavel so i will just pound the table. >> thank you very much, sir.

the justice department inspector general just released a report we have to crack down on china when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. [applause] they steal patents and design. they have counterfeit goods and

i know they want to be a responsible partner in the world of trade and commerce and they are going to have to understand they can't take away jobs on an unfair basis. >> if you make money come investing in economies that uprooted here and went to china. pioneers. you can can't stand up to china when all you have done is send them our jobs. >> watching engage with c-span as the campaigns move toward the november elections are going to national issues of foreign policy will be the focus of debate number three. the first debate on domestic issues will take place wednesday october 3. audience members will get their chance to ask questions at a town hall debate on tuesday the 16th and the final debate on foreign policy will take place the 22nd. also watched the vice presidential candidates debate thursday the 11th. follower coverage on c-span, c-span radio and on line at c-span.org.

>> nato this week announced it will restrict operations with afghan troops in the wake of recent attacks on international forces and police. what is being called green and blue attacks. australian brigadier general roger noble serves as deputy chief of staff for operations for the international security force in afghanistan. he spoke with reporters at the pentagon by videoconference from kabul. we joined a briefing in progress with general nopal talking about green-on-blue attacks. >> i have some questions about the implementation of the training change. veriest descriptions in response to the innocence of muslims, muslim videos and others talking more generally about rain on blue attacks. it would seem like the muslim video protests would subside a lot quicker than the

green-on-blue -- mexican you shed any light onto how long you anticipate implementing this change and relatedly for the troops who backed company platoon level collated with the ansf, what is going to be the impact of this change on how they operate day-to-day? is there the danger of having trusty road if all of a sudden patrols and that sort of operations have to be approved by higher headquarters? >> i think, i will answer in a couple of ways. changing the way we do this, how when and what we do on a daily basis and common sense. we did that over time and it's not necessarily -- these are two separate issues.

one is a short-term incident that is creating -- and next to that what is actually a long-term enemy tactic which is the insider threat so it's an enemy tactic but also an enduring threat to our soldiers whether it's related to the enemy are not. so what has happened is we can learn from previous experience and we remember well. that is what happened in february with the handling of the koran and the burning of the koran and the response on the population. part of that was sent increase in threats of so the two are linked in that manner. what general allen has done is i think pretty sensible. he said, and that is his job, the force protection level. be sensible over this period of time chin then ongoing review

day by day by day so such as because we change doesn't mean we can't change it again and we have done that many times. i have done this quite a few times previously. your question about taking everyone off the platoons and companies and so forth, they can still do that. it's just the authority to make that decision rests at a higher level so the commanders can direct that to happen. and they will do so when they think it's safe and appropriate. one of the keys to the end -- the whole purpose is to erode trust and i can tell you right now that we understand that. the other day i spoke to -- the day after they were killed

and they were pretty unhappy, and the one thing they clearly understood, because they are professional soldiers, and that is the great in a fit of our western professional armies. they get it too. they live and breathe with f. tens -- afghans and they think that sort of conduct is aboard as well so the enemy has a tough task and actually driving a wedge between us because we know what the people who did this are trying to do and we will stand firmly against them. so, i think in a long-term you are going to see an erosion. what you see though is the increased wariness. all of our soldiers are really really careful now and we have a range of -- like the guardian angel just to watch.

i do it myself. i spend part of my day talking to afghans and i trust the ones i speak to but otherwise we take a weapon and make sure we have somebody watching what is happening. so i think what will smash the trust fund -- bonded a theater between us and them, i think the temporary measures and what i think is a prudent response to a period of threats will change or damage the model that was adopted for the campaign. in fact it's common dog as we would say. >> barbara starr from cnn. understanding everything you just said, defense secretary leon panetta says that the insider attacks in his words, are the last gasp of the taliban, while at the same time general dempsey says in his words, you can't whitewash it,

something has to change. it seems like we are getting conflicting signals about all of this. what really is the bottom line at isaf? is this the last gasp for the taliban? do you agree with that and everything you have described, is it possible is a symptom of the deeper issue within the afghan military structure that needs to be resolved for their forces to trust their own commanders to look after them? >> okay, the first thing is, the u.s. secretary of defense and the chairman outrank me, so i've got to be very careful what i say and if you know what they think, you should ask them. but i will give you what we think about the threat. it is a last gasp.

there was an article in "the washington post" today that talked about the insurgents and their capacity to understand how they are using the media information and attacks to undermine our resolve both of the coalition and in afghanistan. i think that is particularly profound. ..

but they can't do that. there's now not just the coalition standing in the way, but ansf three and 50,000 so you can't do that come you can't come back. so what do you do when you're an insurgent in another country in your to feel for up to come back and you can't combat? to result to extreme tactics. so now, 81% of casualties in this country are caused by insurgents using ids, assassination and an endless dream of mass casualty tactics against the billions, awaiting bombing. one office last year with a

bombing in kabul killed up to 80 people. so yeah, if you're only option is violence, the methodology gets right into that box of things to do. so that's where i think they arrive. they don't have a lot of options that it had to do that. and you probably -- the bad news is they'll probably expect, probably try to do that. the good news is that every day that goes by, the afghans are better position to actually be able to hold it and manage it themselves. it's a pretty tough thing to stop. someone who is willing to drive a suicide car into or attack a base and has no interest in surviving these attacks. the second point was about the afghan national's strategic forces and what they need to do.

yeah, we think one of the fundamental reasons at one of the focuses between now is the robust functioning of the institutions of the security force. so things like personal promotion, training, all of those things need to be in place to support a professional army. now, they've grown really rapidly in part of the cost to god as perhaps they haven't done the betting of individuals as well as anybody would've liked in this afghanistan. it's got a special security number here. knowing who the lower is a difficult issue. so there is a lot of work to be done and the afghans understand it and one of my modules is sitting and working on how they're going to go back and tighten up.

and what we try to do is help them at the institutional, long-term fixes that make these petitions like the army robust because the insurgency doesn't look like it's going to way. though still pursue the same tactics now in the afghans need to be able to handle that a mother the storm. cut to pieces, equipment and the people and they just been a robust system and there working every day with us to develop that, to try and strengthen not. and if you do that, you'll also cut back on the insider threat attacks, both against them and us because it is a problem that up until most of the ones we know about. so they need to correct the problem as well. they understand that and if we

do it together, we'll do a quicker and better. over. ! tom bowman with npr. is there anything you can share with us, anything you've learned, and a commenting system.review? when i was over there and make him a day with a particular concern about afghan soldiers going on leaves. when the going rate they can either be radicalized by the taliban or forced by the taliban to kill allied soldiers. if you could address that in particular. >> yeah, i don't want to go through all the elements of the profile for the obvious reason that it will let people know what all the elements are. we don't do that. it is an issue.

so time spent away from the union units and returning to know what the afghans will tell you is unlike us who live in afghanistan. so they are concerned about the safety of their families and pressure that can be put on families, et cetera that may induce individuals to conduct an insider attack. so that is part of the things we are looking back, trying to track and understand pressure and probably the fundamental fix of that is a simple how to do which is good leadership in understanding your soldiers. so particular right down at the small unit level. so who are there? where they from? what other problems? are they getting paid? ported their families live? is everything okay? we do that for our soldiers, believe it or not you may need to do for their soldiers. so they are focused on that

issue and in holding people to account to try and understand and detect those problems early. what we would rather do is make sure they are all while the doctor and turned around and six. the other side of the coin is having constant vigilance to watch. so those sets of indicators to detect their problem early. there's another side of the coin which is actually counterintelligence and carefully monitoring who is moving where. so there is a whole suite of things that come together to try and detect problems early. as people are returning to me this an issue and the number postals talking about how they might be able to deal with all this coming back. when they get back to the unit

their heads on straight and they know what they're doing. >> quickly come you said leave and finish it. how many -- are many of these tax occurring with soldiers and police either awol or coming back from leave? could you at least address that? >> i don't have the figures on exactly what the percentages. i just know it's been an issue in a number of attacks. >> rightly or wrongly, unfairly or fairly perhaps here or outside afghanistan is that this decision by general alan to change the true patrols, strike at the very heart of what isaf is doing to handover to the

afghans pretty always talked trust, but are we making too much of this? or you said this is sort of a sensible thing to do. it is fundamental to this whole campaign that if you can't trust the guys in part of the other 60% 70% for counter personal problems and are not related. so that also is an element of perhaps we seems to be trust between the afghans and isaf. just one question about bastion. is there an indication how is possible for 15 taliban, all dressed in american uniforms could have approached camp bastion commotions and another does there, how they could approach without being spotted?

>> okay, so rightly or wrongly, i think they're making too much of it. general allen has not said will not speak. but he did say to a heightened threat to the unity in this video, which he would have to admit has had an impact globally in the track record in afghanistan responding to things perceived as anti-islamic emanating from the last, he'd be crazy not to hate and force protection. so i think that's logical. he's also not preventing partnership patrols below level. he is just reinforcing the requirement to consider a decision about when, where and

how and he reserves the right of quarters to change the policy in response to what's happening. so as i said, partnership business happens to the top level. during an incident in february recall that all the ministries here for over a month and because of the threat of insider trade, actually americans were shot in the ministry of the interior. we went back and what we found is distance makes the heart is fonder because some of those relationships they realize we need to talk to each other is absolutely fundamental. so i think from my position it is prudent and sensible to make the decision to general alan has made an emphatic tweaking it

automatically. we started to make the orders right away. we need to figure out what is the best response. that is his job, his prerogative we talked to them about how we mitigate this and what we do to help make sure violence doesn't explode across the country. one of the things we've learned is keep a low profile, particularly in periods of detention. there's no change to the security forces systems model. there is no change to have the progress. and when we need to do these things, we do mission essential things. so i think my personal opinion is it's probably the response because they each started our military business.

as a bastion, what is clear about the attack and honest to god i haven't read any investigation because it's not done yet. it's pretty clear was well try planned and that reconnaissance was done prior to and like any good detective it is an approach looking for paul merrill billy d. and exploited those things. it is exactly how that happened and where the vulnerable and weakness lies. again we do this all the time, but after an attack like that it causes you to look real hard at all of the bases, all the force protection measures across the whole country because the enemy attack is quite a lot and very rarely is successful. this is more successful than

normal and we're going to take a lesson out of this and check around the whole country to make sure that there can't be a repeat or minimize the chance for a repeat. that doesn't answer your question. that's because i don't know the answer to your question. >> john jon harper with the asahi shimbun. have you thwarted an attack were merely reserved as a response for shooting the guys who have rd carried out attacks? >> i just missed the beginning of that. but with the first part? >> has any of the guardian angels actually thwarted an insider attack before any casualties were incurred? or had they merely serve as a response for shooting the guys who have carried out attacks after the attacks have rd occurred?

>> the answer to your question is i'm actually certainly thwarted attack. again in the cases, for example, the actual shooter did a reconnaissance. you want to run a number of times, watched tonight reteamed, try to see what was happening. and where he was standing up a position away from that. the answer is, to attack a guardian angel because i'm not sure that happened. i don't think that's happened. have guardian angels responded immediately and killed the attack to cause any more casualties? gas on a number of occasions. had they deterred an attack?

gas, almost certainly because of the way it's done. the afghans have been pretty successful, particularly lightly lately and potential risks before they become an attack where they could do an attack in the two success of that lately. so it would be hard to measure the true effect goodness because of the deterrence value, but i certainly limit the damage genespeaking. sometimes they're ually the ones in the attack, though. over. >> general high, intertel men with military times. i would like to ask you about the impact of general allen's restriction on joint patrols on life in operations inside the wire on a lot of the operating bases you have u.s. and nato troops and afghan troops living side-by-side. and i am wondering if there's

any plans to move people around, fundamental changes to force protection measures on those bases? i mean, you know, how do you handle situations inside the wire? >> one of the changes we've made has not been in response to the recent actually from quite a while before, but what you need to look at closely is the set up inside both and it is often a small technical where options their limited. general allen has directed that everybody go back and look hard at the setup insight tactical structure, so our soldiers and afghan soldiers are positioned in such a way that they can be

protected. very simply, can a guardian angel watch our men or women while they are sleeping, et cetera, et cetera. so it's been a pretty heavy emphasis on going back and looking at the actual conditions on the ground in making sure the afghans show how weapons are managed in a handout, how does the system work, et cetera, et cetera. but that happens all the time, but i think the recent attack cost attention plus the specific orders to do it again just making us do that. generally, thing to understand as you do a afghans come you are not doing a quietly in the corner. it is done hand in glove. so you go around and look at how

to place the setup, who's on the picket, who's doing what, et cetera. the vast majority of afghan soldiers, royal, hard-working, committed and they give their lives on a break in the afghanistan and many of them get along ways. your next point i think he taught about culture and there's definitely coastal interaction problems and of course you can expect that. it comes to the west part of the allied many come for the first time out of western culture are striving to what is a different culture and i think to iraq and iran, this is probably different. so one of the key things has been, what can we do? can we do more? we are trying on the coalition side and the u.s. system -- u.s.

army from the inside out is doing everything it can possibly on all the lessons learned. like swearing. western soldiers swear. like swearing. western soldiers swear. like swearing. western soldiers swear. and the words they use in translating can be extremely offensive to someone who thinks it's a personally directed insult. this guy to tell her loucks, stop swearing and we've got to tell the afghans that when we swear, don't take it personally. it's probably a term of endearment. so we talked long and hard with the afghans about it. actually, even the president was briefed on it and he has agreed to give religious and cultural affairs offices to support our

pre-deployment training, too, and i cannot tan on the ground until last about the do's and don'ts to reinforce some of these messages. i'm also trying to push it back into the afghans so afghans don't need to understand us. i think general allen is a pretty smart guy, the way he describes it as we've got to be excellent deaths in this country. to be a good cast, you have to do what is done. but he also calls on the afghans to be good hosts. they have to try to steer us in the right direction. so it is a big challenge because when you are chic and jowl for you at each other, you get to see what each other is like on those sides. we've got to see what the do's and don'ts are. over her.

>> general, jim miklaszewski with nbc. you talked earlier about the increased wariness on the part of isaf forces in yourself and should do you become increasingly weary in terms of mingling with some of the afghans forces. so, in a sense, haven't the attackers -- whatever their motives already succeeded in some respect in driving a wedge between the afghans and the isaf forces? >> well, the way i answer that is we are professional soldiers. but keep writing until freezes over. i mean, i trust the people that do it. i am just careful. and that's only sensible.

so on a practical level, really it's not going to change what is happening here. probably the bigger impact is back where you are and perception not home. about what does it mean when your friends are shooting. so that is a risk at a strategic level appeared here on the ground, were going to keep doing what we do have a point to be really careful about it because that is sensible and we've learned that you can necessarily see the attack coming. so we are more weary, guess there is more care, definitely sure. down on a fault to be been a victim of one of these attacks, you're certainly going to be more weary and the trust is going to be harder to begin, but then they will stop doing what they are doing. the soldiers will keep going and the marines and airmen and all of us.

so it threatens the campaign contribution inside afghanistan as it is now, but it is definitely does have an effect, a negative effect and does stretch back to home, were obviously the vic dems, the families have to live with it forever and it's difficult to understand why they've been shot at those who have sent a halt. so hopefully that continues. i don't think it's a simple yes or no, over. >> a quick follow-up in which he said in the beginning in your opening remarks. he chatted about the pending recovery of search forces sister but is pending? how many more have to come out and how simple that he? >> the u.s. surge recoveries coming here is what i'll tell you. not many more.

pretty soon, in the next couple of weeks the americans watch their numbers down to the last individual human and they are on track to be in accordance with en date of one october. so what happens. i wouldn't tell you anyways the exact numbers because i don't want people to know them and i don't know them out today. they are very dependent and may change daily by the hundreds if you know what they mean. but the actual path, surge on time by one october. so you're effectively very, very close, over. >> essentially you are saying the search is over? >> yeah, i'm not going say that because i'm in a strutted one

star had orders to isaf. but i'll say what i just said, it's pretty close. it's on track and that is the u.s. surge recovery forces. over. >> sera, it is mike mount with cnn. i just want to go back to something you are saying regarding the guardian angels. you have said there have been cases where they have killed the attackers before anyone else was killed. i just wanted to see if you could quantify that in turn says any statistics on how many cases and have those been reported out publicly and part of the overall stats that we get when we ask how many attacks have happened in x amount of time. >> yeah, i would have to go back to check exactly how many times

the guardian angel fire and prevented further injury to our soldiers. another one happened just recently, where an american officer was killed in the guardian angels fired and killed the sugar immediately following. but i would be guessing if i gave your response statistically, we might do that offline. but have to go back to everyone in check who is doing not at present. i think one of the important things is each insider threat has now joined casualty assessment. what that means is we go with the afghans to the actual incidence, go through it in great detail and prepare a joint investigation that we share that data between us and who the

shooter is in the circumstances of the particular attack. so that's probably the best answer i can give you off the cost in this chair. >> let me just make sure i'm clear, though. you did say there've been cases where guardian angels have thwarted an incident before anybody was killed though, correct? >> now, i didn't say that. we're pretty sure the deterrence and we are not aware of an instance where we've shot someone in the middle of an attack. i would have to check that. i know many of times so far during the check in on a number of occasions this killed the shooter or injured the shooter

and helped end the attack if you know what they mean. but i can't say with certainty before anyone has been injured. when you think about it, that sort of makes sense because a lot of the attacks are at short range and are conducted rapidly. or they are conducting in the dark and their unexpected. over her. >> yes, sir, we'll turn it over to you for any last remarks. >> yeah, look, i've got nothing really more to add. i would just say that one of the things about isaf is that we cheyenne like foer and sent backwards in context and try and keep the day today activities in perspective and in our will we think we're pretty much on

track. being in afghanistan every day shows that the different challenge. in the enemy is nothing if not innovative and committed. so we get what the insider threat problem running attack decks, but the leave no to try and keep our people safe and we are not going to shy away from our commitment to the campaign. over. >> thank you for your time this evening, sir. >> okay, thank you, mate.

>> when i first came to washington i didn't know what an ig did get my experience with this prosecutor we saw them occasionally would run into the law-enforcement arms. they would be our aging and i was doing mortgage fraud cases they started a mortgage fraud unit, was to inspect his general from hud, which are back up on first nations. i did know the big picture when i.t. was doing. when i got the job, when i got down on the first things i did was meet the different ig's. starting at those meetings and over the last couple of years, i found the inspector general as they call them although they're supposed to be this fierce watchdogs looking out for waste, fraud and abuse, the magic word written into statute and what they are supposed to be doing have really become often like

any other governmental agency. their number one concern seems to be things about their budget, how to preserve their budget. they are very worried about clashing with management. they are worried about too much interactions with congress. it is really very much a go along, get along type of attitude. but i kept hearing over and over again as three different types of ig. a lap dog who would presumably curl up on the lap of management and i was discouraged. a watchdog, sort of in between in a junkyard dog. i think ultimately what is going to the confirmation process, was told by senator bachus, head of the finance committee which is overseeing one of my main advantage to be like a junkyard dog. >> former national security

advisers assess the foreign policy challenges facing the u.s. brent scowcroft in the forward bush administrations. george w. bush's national security adviser, stephen hadley this is an hour and a half. >> president degioia, thank you for the wonderful introduction of the panel and introduction of may. it does remind me -- i've written here, these are men who need no introduction. my introduction will not be so fulsome of men who taught me that introduction. but i did hear the ceo of ibm wants to truce a colleague of yours, henry kissinger, that way. henry kissinger came up to the podium and as lou gerstner, then ceo of ibm and said your

introduction was far too modest. and so the next time when he stood up and introduced and again and talked about his nobel peace prize and his bestsellers and influence on history and told the whole story about how he thought he needed no introduction, but he thought this time he had to give it up because of last time, to which henry kissinger came to the podium and said, it is true, lou, that no minneapolis introduction lesson idea, but no man appreciates one more. so thank you, president degioia. so these men don't need introduction. i will say however how unusual it is for this audience to have three former national security advisers, to assert republicans come up on his the democrat on this stage. i also have to be a little careful because they are rows of

board members said they plan to counsel and therefore my bosses. this is a week on friday when we will be launching the atlantic council to brent scowcroft sentra national security. general jones is the chairman of the center. steve hadley has been on of the chief instigators have it come so we are very proud of that. i also send you greetings from another georgetown atlantic council, proud to be here a distinguished professor here, senator chuck hagel sends his greetings also to you, gentlemen. these three men and body american foreign policy at its best, principal at the tough-minded, bipartisan, that decisive. at inconsistently in the u.s. interest, but never boring and always including in our calculus the broader global contacts in the interest of our friends and allies. i say all that because it is

just not to be taken for granted all the times in this town that these kinds of individuals thrive and we're very happy for their public service, which is unique and long-lasting. i also was thinking in this introduction to talking about their years of total at face to u.s. presidents and i can somehow total it up on an envelope. it was really impossible because each of these gentlemen advise presidents before they got into office in their various positions, which were quite important and then also afterward, they are still listen to in the highest councils of government. so that is why this is such a unique opportunity. i will start with a couple of initial questions, couple grounds and then i will come to the audience. and i will go in the order that you gentlemen served as national security advisor. i do want to say one thing.

i have had conversations before but these gentlemen about what the job is like. i talked to general jones when he was in office at the general jones, what is it like? was it like being national security adviser? he said there's these things going on and he said, have you ever been to a circus and seen the plate spinner? and then he went on at some length explaining why that wasn't such a bad metaphor. you know, steve hadley has called it a told burner stove. since i'm going to be asking my first question of general scowcroft, i'll leave it to use his definition of it. i think what it is is a dramatically changing job. when i asked henry kissinger with the national security advisor does, he went back to

the kennedy administration and he said that when he first started working for the kennedy administration had taken a trip to europe and was invited to president kennedy. afterwards he talked to someone about it unless asked, what did you tell the president? and he told the president he had a lot of problems in europe and that person said to me, the president knows he has a lot of problems in your peers have a lot of problems in syria, airy and problems with the euro zone crisis. we have issues with the south china sea. it is a storm of issues coming and then kissinger said county need to be useful to the president. you don't tell him a problem. you give him at least an indication of what we should do about it because that is what presidents do. you can expect him to get here and ruminate about your definition. and so we thought, i would like to open with general scowcroft.

you have said before that this is a strategic moment, the likes of which haven't been seen since the berlin wall. i just recited some of the things that sit down with either reelected and all these men have had these conversations. you either sit down with reelected president obama or newly elected governor romney and you've got to describe him in what ways does strategic moment more important than the berlin wall and 90 s-sierra purdy's? you do? get it started with that. >> i'm enjoying sitting here listening to you. >> i'm done, i'm done. [laughter] >> one of the first things i'd like to face a job when i first got in it is very different from the job now in this sense.

when i first became national security adviser from the cold war was still on. that was a strategy. we have the strategy laid out for us to put our arms around the soviet union and hold it and keep it from breaking out until it's integrated. so that was a given. cannot we argued a lot with our friends and allies of no one about the tactics of how you do this and how you do that in the background was the knowledge that if we made a serious mistake, we could end up in a thermo nuclear war. but not with the framework. so we settled with the tactics, but the strategy was given. now, the strategy is not a given as a matter of fact commander is probably not a strategy which is all encompassing for the

world-weary now. it is a chaotic world and so we tend to be all tactics and strategy and the real problem is how you relate to different tactics to each other and that is one of the principal things. it's all fine to say we just use a little force here and that will straighten out problem now. the use of metaphors here, you create other problems that build on themselves and pretty soon you are dealing with the problems you've created by not thinking ahead. rather than the ones you're trying to solve. >> let me do a quick follow-up on that. and to make this as informal as possible, though i will go down the line here whenever you want to jump in on something, and he has a oneness others of you said please do. going back to the point,

strategic moment from the likes of which we haven't seen since the berlin wall. is that because there is a shifting of power from the u.s., from the west were headed during the postmodern world. all the things written about this period of time or how what she describes a shifting strategic moment? wisely shifted moment? >> at a shifting because of the soviet union as an existential threat to everything we believe this gone. that is why it is no longer the strategic senate. but the world is changing even more fundamentally. we still mentally live in a westphalian world, a world of the nationstate, those independent units that are truly sovereign and don't depend or don't take orders from anybody else. but now, globalization has come and is poking holes in the westphalian world and the nationstate can no longer do what it assumed that could do

for us citizens. innings to reach out for help. and so you've got this westphalian systems, living an uneasy coexistence with this globalized world and you say, reducing power? very nature of power is different now than it used to be. you know, you on your textbooks say these are the elements of national power to the economy, this come about and the other. it is much more complicated now. >> general jones. >> i would like to just add that i think the essential concept of what makes of national security has changed. it is much more broader field now. you have to deal with economic issues, cybersecurity. you have to deal with the world that is largely asymmetric

instead of symmetry. when you reflect back, you almost yearn for the record raise up the 20th century. we had essentially a bipolar world to different ideologies could rebuild institutions that were responsible to the world do not construct and all the sudden the world has changed dramatically and a lot of the threats it faces in the face you, challenges are very asymmetric. how do you respond to nonstate at yours, for example? they are not part of the united nations. they don't deal symmetrically with the world as it is. so you have to understand the environment you are in. and if you're an incoming administration, you have to get the job of understanding the difference between campaigning and governing very quickly.

the national security council is probably the first instrument of government that manages the interagency process in such a way that you don't miss a beat because you don't have much time to get ready. so the asymmetric nature of the world, and the expanded notion of what constitutes national security is more the whole of government involvement and that gets too and i think we can talk about this if you like, but it gets to a different way in which the united states engages in the 21st century of what the world as it is, not as it was. >> general jones coming years that the great powers to climb and they don't address the problems they have. i think that is a wonderful, wonderful statements. does that mean that our political polarization, we look at the fiscal crisis is not being dealt with?

two-seat a presidential campaign producing perhaps more heat than light on these issues. does that mean and he said this before the key right now is getting our own house in order, that we have to step back a little bit from international or an engagement or president obama has said we need to do nation building a home to again reestablish ourselves. what is your view on that? >> well, i think it is true that if you go back to the dominant countries or civilizations, they eventually come to one reason or another. one of the reasons they comment or decline is because the world has changed, the environment has changed and they try to hang onto the old model too long without adjusting to the new one. that is a challenge that faces us. we are in my view in a position right now of great historical,

potentially great historical consequences. because of our own internal economic situation at the help of wit drives a lot of who we are and the rest of the world. and until you get your own house in order, it's kind of hard to number one, manage to influence the world. and you certainly can't preach to others how to do it quite effectively. but i really believe this is a very historical moment for the united states because yoko is the economy, so goes just about everything else. we have to your point about by repeated quote that when a nation can no longer bring itself to do those things to note that must do in order to advance its future, then you have probably the first step of

a decline in terms of influence. i am an optimist. i think regardless of how precarious their situation is, i think we have always risen to the occasion. so i don't subscribe to the inevitability of the american decline, which i have heard every 10 years since i've been old enough to understand what sputnik meant flying around the world. but it is a difficult moment in terms of national security were at large. we have to be old to do those things as our citizens expect to be by 2050. >> thank you, general jones. i think to a former marine, not supreme as well as national focusing on issues as an element

for security is a very interesting -- is a very interesting point. steve hadley, having just come back from europe, our friends are telling me they see this as the most important election of one of the most important election since world war ii. but not because of who would be elected, but what kind of america will express itself on the world stage in the next four years? has a look at this the question for general scowcroft, is this a big strategic shift? are we at an inflection point in global history. is that right? and if so, what kind of u.s. global leadership would you say to a newly elected president? what would you tell them about what he has to do on the world stage? >> a number of things. one is we focused a lot about challenges. i had the job for president bush to comment about seven or eight minutes after seven in the

morning and tell him about the challenges that occurred overnight in the trick for the president is to let him know there's a problem without sending them to the overhead at 10 after seven in the morning. so i would come in and say hadley, what's that the nsa while mr. president, and there's a couple challenges that have occurred, which is code for crisis. there are a couple of challenges that have emerged. the president would say how to use has never challenged there is an opportunity for this country and your job is to go find that opportunities to capitalize on it. so get going. [laughter] but the point that i think as we could overcome the challenges. they also opportunities for us to shape events and put policies in place that will shape events

in later a future. the problem that is described, the modern national security adviser has and this is the same thing general jones said is there so many challenges, christ is coming into the white house that you can spend all of your time reacting to events is not enough time putting in place policies that will shape events and therefore avoid crises in the future. that is an issue at allocation of time. it's also an issue of structure. so first thing i told the president to get in the race in the mind is challenges, but there's also opportunities. secondly, he needs to think about reacting to events and shaping events, not just reacting to events. third, i think we need to re-look at structures of national security. if it is not only harnessing all

elements of governmental power and influence, but it's also using the private sector. our charitable foundations, corporations trying to conduct a symphony and two coordinated policies that can be entering trees. we don't have structures that allow us to do that particularly well and we need to shape and change our national security structures. fourth, i think it means sometimes we have to place some bets. you have to have a vision of the future and you have to be willing to make some big changes. we love the generation of leaders to 1947 to 1949 and say some of the most significant challenges other. what honor these men because they had a vision and they made some major institutional changes, the creation of nato, and whole series of global

institutions that allowed us to begin to shape the future. that is a challenge for a new president to see -- >> wearing a starkly comparable moment right now. >> idea. finally went back over both brent and jim have said, that the element for the united states, for being in a position to shape those events is our own power and authority in the world and that really is dependent on a solving our political problems that prevent us getting our house in order in terms of debt and in terms of indebtedness and getting our economy going. that undergirds everything we do in the world is the source of our influence. it is by country allies rely on us, friends and others want to trade with us. it is a prerequisite to being in

a position to shape the future for our children and our children's children. and it's not that hard. one of the things i think the message we need to send to you as this can be a very hopeful future for you and i will conclude with one remark. bob zoellick was out in august announcement and he said some thing. he said i was talking to a european that i respect in the european to me, you know, the united states is one budget deal away from a return to global influence and prosperity. you've got shale oil, shell gas, make manufacturing attractive, put people to work. you just need to solve this political problem and show the world you can solve this political problem, ditch her house in order and then try and shape the future. that is really what the president needs to do. >> to the two of you agree of the caliber of 47 in 1847, 49?

>> yes, similar but different. i think the thing that is different now is that there is really nobody else capable of leading the world. the chinese can't do it, the russians can't do it. the europeans may be eventually canned, but they're going to get their own house. we're the only ones who can mobilize the world behind great enterprises. if were contemplating at all tied up with their internal problems, we can't do it on the world desperately needs it. because as i said at the outset, there is no obvious direction to go now, other then how do you

improve man and his relationship to other men in the environment? we're the only ones that can do that. but we can't do it if we don't put our house in order. >> i would just like to emphasize that american leadership in the 21st century is going to probably take a little bit different shape than a heart of the 20th century and i think it's normal. i think it is responsive to the environment that we face. for example, i think that the military response will probably be not the only instrument of choice. not the first instrument of choice in some cases. i think we are entering into a period where the sum total of the whole of the nation, all of government approach to helping solve world problems is going to be upon us.

the good news is the united states is still the only country that can do that. we have been enormously capable private sector. there are a lot of things that could be done anything within our government, the legislature to help americans to be more competitive abroad. to all of our young people here, i would say you are entering into an age of competitiveness. it's national, personal, that the ability to compete in this very much smaller, more rapidly spinning world, to operate within the vortex of the social media and to deal with the rapidly changing events means that our decision-making process is not going to have the luxury of time in many come in many cases we have to be quick. we have to be agile, responsive

and i think the dirt is going to be extremely important. so the gap that exists historically between the public in the two will have to be tightened because we are competing against major countries and ideologies where there is no -- there is no gap. the during the public set are in complete harmony and some of these are democracies as well. so it is just a different style for the parties seen many instances where the synergy between closely coordinate public and are works to her advantage. i also think that the third leg is going to be other institutions like ngos and the like coming universities as steve pointed out. you can dial up a response package to a particular -- in response to a particular set of

events that doesn't necessarily mean it always has to be military. the three elements for me, and the elements of an engagement will be obviously a security element, but also an economic development. and thirdly, to help develop countries do the things they must do in order to be successful. energy to me is a tremendous national security issue that has been any administration since president mixed in. we've always talked about it, we have lamented about it and we generally relax at a price of oil and gas at the pump and when it goes down, we forget about it. but if you wanted to make a change in the world, energy is one of the areas where american leadership could be dominant for the foreseeable future.

it makes sense to help the developing world approaching and their own internal development, pollution states, fossil fuel building states to help them skip that stage and get to clean energy and the like. .. rage that followed more reprecisely it's the president turning to you and saying what

do i do about syria, what do i do about iran, we have seen reports of benjamin netanyahu importance with us. i think in a microsense perhaps focus particularly on syria of the fire storm of events going on and tell me where the opportunity is in that challenge. >> god luck. >> we're listening. [laughter] >> these are very difficult challenges, and particularly after the tragic death of an am ambassador and several others serving our country. we have to pull together. but i think, and i have been reluctant and continue to be reluctant to criticize the administration. i have some appreciation of the problems we're faces. but the issue between crisis

management and shaping events, and yes, we are in a period where in response were, i think, a pretext of the tape that was made in the united states, there a lot of people expressing rage. a lot of that is extremist groups taking advantage of an opportunity to try to demonstrate against the united states and to take some fairly moderate governments that are post revolutionary in the middle east that want to work with the united states and to try to shove them away from us. the worst reaction to this tragedy would be for us to pull away from the middle east. we need to engage the middle east. it's very fashionable for people to say well, the united states doesn't have much influence. it's in a way an excuse not to act. we have a lot of influence. but in any event, we do have influence and there's no excuse

not to use it to try to shape a better future. and the real thing i'm worried about in the middle east is going on in syria, it's been going on now for 18 months. it is a struggle that is becoming increasingly violent increasingly sectarian, sunny against shited and opening own agenda. and it is now to the point where we have the risk of a sectarian war in syria that not only destablizes syria but destablizes, lebanon, iraq, jordan, and potentially turkey. the opportunity, quite frankly, is to bring an tend the regime

sooner. we have seen the longer it goes are the more people die, the more sectarian it is. the more it upsets the neighborhood. the question is destablizing the neighbor. the question is how to do it. i think the way you do it is empower the people that are fighting for the future. and give them the weapon so they can topple this regime themselves. this is not just a single crisis management situation we handledded tunisia, we handled libya, and egypt and syria. this one runs the risk of the melt down in the middle east. it is astrategic opportunity try to further emphasis and establish yet another example

are where sunni shiites which is what the middle east needs. for hundreds of years the model has been sunnies shiites shited oppress that won't work. we need to start it in syria and bring it to an end. i agree with that. one of the favorite sayings is the virtual presence is the absence. if you think about how you want the things to come out, we have an interest in that. you have to understand you can't sit back and hope, hope is not at strategy. since the fall of iran

particularly in the middle east, the people have emerged from these toppling of dictators, if you will are, are generally the people who are the best organized and the people are the best organized are generally radical. and if you don't want to go through another bad period, you need to do things that counter that reality they are the best organized. so, you know, i think steve's points about working with friend of allies in the region who have significant equities in this like turkey specifically. but the presence of the united states with these people -- with these allies can maybe, for example, bring back the israel turkish relationship which would be instrument tal. they are two countries that have vested interest in how this whole thing plays out. i do think that the syrian

question is particularly important because of what it means with regard to iran and the future. the new -- that gives hope for the people and the more freedom and opportunity would be devastating for the iranian goals and aspirations. but i think that we need see more international involvement. more concern more assistance to the people who are fighting for this eye dole. and when the day comes, that assad leaves office, one way or the other, if you don't have a plan in place, it's already too late. >> general, i wonder if you can pick this up. interesting listening to the two gentleman. there is no u.n. security counsel resolution. you have the chinese and the russians against any action very different situation for a lot of

reasons than libya country that is tired of afghanistan tired of iraq. you're talk together president of the united states here looking at the stakes. i think the stakes have been outlined dramatically here. what does he practically do. what does he do in syria and what context should he do it? >> i think that's the fundamental question. and it would be nice if syria were as compact and differentiated that the answers are obvious. i don't think they are. i think if assad left tomorrow, you wouldn't have a very different syria. syria and lebanon are the most intermixed countries possible in the world. ethnically, religious, they are very, very complicated. yes, you have a shiites/sunny,

that goes too. the turk's attitude, the iraq attitude, they are not all on the same side on this one. if we intervene in syria, it is not obvious who comes out ahead and who we want to come out ahead. the majority is about 60% sunni. they are different kind, and the christians, a lot the palestinian ref fujis in syria, don't want the sunnies to win. because the assad regime has been more protective of them than the sunnies were. this is extremely complicated. and i think, i think we need -- i think we need to talk more seriously with the russians. , you know, the russians are

holding on to -- syria is their last foothold in the middle east. when i first joined the nfc, the rush russians were dominated over half of the middle eastern countries. now they are down to one. if they lose assad, they are finished. they have an equity in preserving some of their position in syria. theoretically, they ought to be willing to help. i think it is really complicated but i think especially a military intervention in syria would put another country in our basket. we already have iraq, we have afghanistan, we don't need another one. >> you would not go farther than the obama administration is now? >> i would go further in some respects. i think we gheed further with the turks.

it's not clear to me what they want, but what they need is a huge amount of help with over 100,000 refugeeses they have. >> i agree with brentd. he's described the problem in syria very well. the problem is we do not. the outcome -- i think it is going to be increasingly be worse and the violence against the minority groups up. the only solution i can see, and this is where the stunt in the challenge, and you have to work with the opposition and the administration is trying to do this and it's very frustrating work. you have to convince this opposition court which is sunni they representatives of the other groups. give them a genuine role and have a message to syrian society that the new syria has a place for all minorities and they will be protected. they don't need to cling to

assad. if they go down with assad it will make their -- in the new syria even difficult. is it hard work? absolutely. >> responsibility to protect? >> the answer is there's no real alternative because if we leave it, -- on the russian point. i think brent is right. i think we need a tactical shift. right now the assad think the russians and the chinese can safe him because they presented any security action. i think in the short run the president needs to say i'm not dealing with the security counsel. i'm going deal with the countries in the region, turkey, jordan, and the rest we're going to deal with assad. when it's clear, i think it will cause some of the groups to break away from assad. i think it may bring the russians to their senses and once that train gets moving and assad is going. there's a question of opening the door back for the rush russians to come back. maybe they can be part of a

solution for that end game. for the moment, we have, i think, in the short run, break the lock that the russians and the chinese through the u.n. have had because they're impeding any action. again, my analysis is the longer this goes, the worser it gets. and the more out of control the solution that brent describes. is this a hard problem? absolutely. but, you know, it's not going get embedded any easier just leaving it on the table. >> one thing -- i should have mentioned is -- [inaudible] who is the new envoy is one of the wisest men that i know. i think we ought to be looking for ways question -- we can help him to maybe get a ceasefire. or whatever he thinks and listen to his judgment. he's out there now talking to both sides to see what if there

is that we're missing that might give us leverage we don't have now. >> one more question before we go to the audience. >> it's an important question, obviously. i want to make sure that i'm clear that i don't advocate military intervention in this. >> including a no-fly zone. >> well, i mean. you can talk about that. >> i'm not talking about putting boots on the ground. >> okay. >> but . >> the army. >> i think that -- i do think that when the united nations proves itself to be ineffective as it has, in my view, the united states has a moral obligation to find another solution however temporary it might be. for example to steve's points about opportunities, there's a tremendous opportunity here for the united states to work with

modern arab countries on the problem. the tremendous opportunity work with a nato ally in turkey. and a tremendous opportunity to bring israel in to the equation. and, by the way, you have to do it scarefully. don't think there wouldn't be willingness to do that on a quiet level. but to wait and let the thing escalate even more is a big mistake. i thought that the humanitarian side great move is to take the uss over and put off the coast of libya and fly out in the civilians wounded and named in the fighting. i think it's a good idea for the refugees an in syria. and -- but i don't think that a great nation with privilege of leadership in the world can sit

back and watch this escalade like this. >> thank you very much. let me go to the audience, and i think the way it works people stand in front of the microphone. if you'll identify yourself and put a question mark at the end of whatever short statement you may make. the only thing i'll say is this was quite intentional. what you saw here was a way of macrothinking about where the world is and microdrilling down on an issue that is really real and huge stakes and no easy solutions. the men have been in a position you can't write a paper about it and you can't do a paper you have to decide you have no option and indecision is a decision in which. please. >> okay. good afternoon. my name is billy. i'm a master candidate at the

security study plan. a pleasure to see you again. you spoke to my glass some years ago. it's been mentioned that al qaeda has killed one of our ambassador and launching attacks and very ironically the number one book selling america this this week is written by one of the seals on the bin laden raid. and when general was the national security advice didn't exist. and in 1998, steve where in the book that then nationally security adviser wouldn't authorize elements to the united states to skill bin laden because there was a very different understanding about the use of force in that sort of situation. and since then, mr. hadly, and general jones have been the national security adviser. i have taken a approach to address the transnationallal demonstrate actor threats that

have been mentioned. can you talk about the role that you direct action be it under title x or 50r while you were the national security advicer. how you advised the president about it. and what you think we should do with that particular tactic in addressing this global threat that we face all over the world? >> general jones, since you're the most recent serving. >> steve, i'll be happy to follow. >> the 9/11 commission actually found that president clinton had authorized cia to use lethal authorities to get osama bin laden. you can look at that, but it's important. i want to do justice to the history because this sort of what we used to call the war on terror has been the project now

of three administrations actually four because a lot goes book what then vice president bush did even in the reagan administration. there's a continuity where a lot of administrations. the framework of president bush and the war on terror was take the fight to the enemy, overseize, treat those who harbor terrorists not in the same terms as the terrorist and at the same time promote democracy, freedom, social justice as an alternative to the vision of the terrorists gives people some hope rather than despair. and to involve now over 80 countries in that effort against terror, direct action has a role to play. it is in piece of the integrated strategy. i think it has to be seen. it is a new instrument starting

in iraq and since the integration between intej and operations is remarkable. it is -- what has been achieved. and what i'd like to hear general jones on this. it offers an thawnt we may in places like yemen and somalia. be able to deal with the terrorist challenge without having to do the kind of thing we did in afghanistan and iraq. but through a combination of intelligence, intelligence sharing with the local government, training and strengthening local security forces, and law enforcement, helping local governments get legitimate sei among their people. sharing intelligence with them, and doing some operations through remote vehicles air vehicle, special operations forces, there may be a way to keep the country safe using these different set of tools in places like yemen and somalia and the like.

and that is sort of the evolution, i think, in the strategy of how we deal with these problems militarily. but i'll go back to general jones. he was the guy in the hot seat after i left. >> in a perfect world, we like to have all of your allies grow with what you do and give you permission to do whatever it is you think needs to be done. it's not a perfect world, unfortunately. the direct action missions have a place nobody should, i think, make the mistake of thinks it's a panacea for a long-term solution. it's not very strategic, it's very tactical. and while we can marv l at the suggestion, the progress and the precision that has been

aschiewfed. and steve is right, about the clinton administration about i happen to be serving at the for the secretary of defense, and during the clinton administration and osama bin laden was clearly someone that -- had we had the kind of precision we had we might have done something different. for reasons of having to do with the potential for mass casualties, we didn't always take advantage of it. but today's a different day, but to the instrument, i think you have to be as much as possible you have to incorporate it in your overall strategy to incorporate how you deal with sovereign nations so that if you do use it it's in their benefit as well. in the case of pakistan, which is a certainly easily csh that's my biggest frustration is

national security adviser we could never get a clear sense of what the pakistani military was willing to do or not willing to do. eventually it became clear but we certainly in 2009 hoped that we would have a willing partner that would help us by eliminating the safe haven for terrorists. and the leaders that went with it. i want to make it clear they weren't going to in order to reduce a number of americans who were being killed and allies who were being killed in afghanistan we really had no choice but to go after the leadership in the very tactical targeted way with tremendous success. but i think the lesson here you want to get it within the envelope of sovereign nation to sovereign nation relationships

and ?rot to resort to taking things in your own hands. leave you open to international criticism. >> and what i'm going to try to do. i see quite few questions. keep your questions short, and if you can say who you would like to address it to. maybe we can get a little more back and forth. >> [inaudible] general jones, you already mentioned pakistan, how would the challenges for a new democratic government different in dealing with pakistan next to the expected government and more importantly the military leadership for pakistan would change maybe you could comment on how the challenges might get better or -- [inaudible] >> i -- say that one more time. >> so the military leadership of footballing is expected to change next year so is the

government. where do you see the direction of u.s. relationship going with pakistan with those expected changes? >> step down general keykey right. right. right. well, from my stand point since i mentioned pakistan, i would hope that in the interest of pakistan, not the interest of the united states, that pakistan finds a way to bring in a area of civilian leadership in which the military plays its proper but subordinate role. my experience with my dealing with pakistan was that's not the case. i mean, the civilian leadership could be very, very well -- but the military was going to do exactly what it wanted to do. and so as i said, it was my

personal biggest frustration, i think. because i think that had we been able to -- had pakistan, as a country, been able to accept what it was, i think that the rest of the world was offering in a particularly the united states, which would have transformed over within a few years, of course, but much of the economic situation in pakistan. that would benefit the pakistani people. we would be in a different place today in both pakistan and afghanistan, unfortunately that was not achieved. but so, i think with change there's hope. i'm hopeful that the next generation of military leaders will subordinate themselves to civilian control over the next generation of civilian leaders will assert that. >> yes. >> my name is brandon. i'm a soft more in the school of

foreign service. i'm wondering where the u.s. should draw the line with -- we have a history of doing it in libya but where do we draw the line in decides if we should intervene in terms of saving people? >> [inaudible] where do you draw the line in responsibilities to protect humanitarian. that's a good question. the u.n. has come close to declaring the responsibility protect as a world mandate. but the responsibility to protect that is when a country -- when a leadership of a country cannot or does not protect major elements of the population, it's the duty of the u.n. and the international community to intervene. and that is a very appealing notion. unfortunately, article ii of the

u.n. charter says that nothing in this charter shall give the right of the organization to interfere in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the members. we have a fundamental conflict here between the charter itself and this new law, if you will, or the law that's developing. we need to work on that, and we need to clarify what it means and how it means. i think it is a step forward, i think it is ill to find and leads to confusion and even worse now. >> do you want to pick that up. >> perfect. >> hi i'm ray fie yell. i'm a -- [inaudible] my question has to do with the role of the u.s. leadership in the world. of