a budget issue. and we have got our deficits actually coming down to a level which is now lowers and they were when president obama took office.

and they said to you train our security forces and then leave and we will welcome you back as friends. obviously the training security forces enabling them to take more responsibility for the country is critical. he followed it now for a long time in the armed services committee. how are they doing and how much more help do they need from us? the questioning of americans will ask, for how long? >> i think that they've protected elections. i don't know of any area -- there may be some -- where the taliban have been able to pull the ground. the army has peaked huge losses,

so for there is a willingness to fight the system. the iraq he divisions, which just disappeared when i isis showed up. there's a presence inside afghanistan. most afghans don't like the telegram, and like the army. so they've done well. they need continued support. training, equipment, they need training particularly with the air force, intelligence logistics. those are three areas they need continued support. >> do we have a goal of removing the forces by 2016, but both general campbell and general dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs have said if circumstances change by 2016,

they are going to make recommendations for the president can to avert the chairman of joint chiefs gays or whoever our commander in afghanistan. they will make whatever the circumstances indicate they should make as a regulation flashback to the president pushed back another time comes. when all of the forces. but in the meantime, there are areas including the counterterrorism which i should put in there. the counterterrorism just takes intelligence and power. those are the areas for the security and special support but they are doing well and they are well liked and there's local police that are well liked by the way that are close to the village leaders into and that effort is apparently successful as well. and the national police are doing well, too mac.

years ago everybody said the army is great. they have strong support that the national police is corrupt. we haven't heard much about that. even the national police seems to have cleaned up their act somewhat. >> i'm going to ask one last question and invite you into a little bit of controversy and go to the audience for questions. i think david sydney and the former ambassador in the peace that they published a few days ago brought something to my attention, they said something which i had not understood which is that the u.s. air operations which continue in afghanistan are use to defend come and correct me if i got this wrong, used to defend u.s. and coalition troops but not at this point in support of afghan security forces. since it is all one fight that surprised me a little bit.

do we have that right in terms of how we are using our air power? >> i am not sure where that has been decided by the way. hopefully not because it is not a good point. i don't know that that has been result resulted yet, but they make a good point. >> let's have questions from the audience. man, we will start with you in the back. >> i appreciate the statement. [inaudible] i'm a correspondent from afghanistan and basically from afghanistan, too mac. everything looks wonderful after the big change in afghanistan but the only concern this is the policy of pakistan, do you think that after the new government in afghanistan and pakistan is able to change the policy towards afghanistan? >> we've been pushing them to change their policy for as long as i can remember.

maybe a dozen trips to afghanistan in troops to afghanistan in the last ten years or so and used to go to pakistan. we've received so much false information in afghanistan about the policies i just don't even go there anymore. i don't want to hear their line anymore frankly about what they are doing. at one point i had the head of intelligence say if you could point out to us where in pakistan that people the people are that are supporting the taliban in afghanistan we will go after them and they looked at him like all you kidding? you know where they are, you are supporting them. so i've given up in terms of

trying to change their policy towards afghanistan. we shouldn't give up. fact that i am frustrated as out of policy by the way. but it's just a fact of life. i'm just being honest. but now there might be some additional ways in which we can encourage pakistan to really go after the people creating trouble inside of afghanistan. there may be some new ways of persuasion towards pakistan to go after the problem that's being created in afghanistan. but created in pakistan. we just have to keep looking for ways and not to be frustrated by my frustration.

if the mountain doesn't go to mohammed mohammed will go to the mountain [inaudible] [laughter] i am an afghan american and for ten years i have been the president of the national coalition dealing with the tribes from all over. first of all i want to extend appreciation for the partnership that existed between the united states and afghanistan. we were partners in fighting the soviet union. you surprise us with military equipment and we surprised the manpower and there are 2 million of the citizens, 1.5 billion the

battlefield. we managed to gather to bring the soviet empire down to its knees. as two nations, we partnered together to fight against terrorism in 2001. it is was the ground forces of the freedom fighters supported from the united united states that we managed to get rid of the taliban and al qaeda. ica stream in our relationship. in 2005 it was okay. today we do not see the strength of the partnership that we had in the past. the facts are you cannot play marbles with the pakistani isi.

they are belatedly supported the haqqani group and have established bases. they send rockets killing our people, driving people out. we have a partnership we just signed. does this include the united states bringing action against the pakistani government through the united nations by imposing sanctions against them to stop what they are putting on the people? i appreciate the fact we want to develop afghanistan and to bring peace and prosperity but the people of the united states, you said how do you bring the people. we bring the people back into the arena by informing them and letting them know that the battle is not between afghanistan and pakistan are between afghanistan and iran. this is a battle that al qaeda

on the block terrorists isis are fighting using afghanistan as a battling ground. and as long as we keep the door open for these people to come in and do this battle against you, i extend my condolences and appreciation to over 2,000 american soldiers have sacrificed their lives in afghanistan come of it they have sacrificed their lives for afghanistan alone. they sacrificed their lives for the children of the united states so that their futures are secure so that people can not. i want the united states to voice its opposition to the pakistani isi is doing. >> there is a question in the back, yes ma'am.

>> i have a question about counterterrorism efforts in iraq right now. there've been some contradictory reports about the u.s. and russian counterterrorism collaboration, so i'd like you to clarify what that collaboration looks like and then also in terms of terrorist financing, what is the current status of saudi arabia? are they moving towards that financing and the way that in the way that they promised and the way that we expect? >> i don't know any more about the u.s. russian collaboration then you do but i just saw for the first time we are not in session now to get the briefings we usually do briefing as we usually do but i only know what i've read about and we will know a lot more when we get back if

it's real in the intelligence area i hope it is by the way. there ought to be common ground on some things and it ought to be including the case of russia and the west because of their activities in ukraine and other places. but there are still areas where there should be working together. and if they can't unite the world, nothing can. if isis can't unite the era of debate -- arab and muslim world, isis is an opportunity. it's hard to use that word, but isis, it can unify people. its unified the world. how many countries now, 67 are

signed up to support him in some way the effort against isis. there's a coalition that involves arab and muslim countries openly bought quietly but openly participating in the campaign against isis. that could have a major impact on their populations, the recognition that a tiny percentage of islam is conducting in the name of islam perfect acts and the other part is seeing and already know that is and what islam is about what they do not want to be perceived in that way so you will find a coming together over time and the president has pointed out this is going to be a long battle but i think now there

could be a turning point in the world in the islamic world and the non- islamic world against a common threat. i hope the stories are true but i don't know any more about it than i have read in terms of sharing of intelligence between russia and the united states. if it's true i think that it would be a good sign of power to unite people against it. the second question has to do with iraq, i'm sorry, but financing and i know the issue has been raised constantly and we think there's been progress made in that area there's been a problem even though it's the governments looking the other way when it happens. it's other countries in the gulf

that look the other way when they thought that they were supporting a cause they believed in and i'm not sure which one is more prevalent. >> mark snyder come international crisis group. most of the people say how sorely your voice is going to be missed in the u.s. senate. >> my wife would not join you on that. [laughter] two questions we will have a report coming up today or tomorrow on the afghan political transition. one of the things you mentioned was the importance of sustaining the coalition government by and that for continuing to support the strengthening of the nsf and one of the questions we have in we have in the recommendation report and previous reports is that to do that we need to

provide the combat enablers, close air support over the intelligence and thus far it isn't clear how that's going to be provided after 2014 so i'm wondering whether or not you can speak to that issue. you spoke of supporting the moderate rebel forces in syria. they are getting clobbered at the moment and while you're suggestion for action along the border would relieve what may be a massacre the question is how do you provide more support for the moderate rebels now? >> the word in that sentence is now because there is a no pc support and the hope is it will be able to be provided leader but it's going to take some time i can't comanage on covert

support. i can't confirm that but if that's true you've got to factor that into some extent. i do know but i can't say. but if it's true it is a factor. on the overt support for just the department of defense support the president has laid out a course of action i just hope it can be sped up and that is the point in terms of the enablers that you made reference to, those are not in general terms i don't think the precise nature of of each area. maybe it has and i don't know if that's going to be determined by the circumstances and the events and capabilities on the ground

and i don't know that in any area they have been fully worked out and if they have in the area of intelligence that i would be able to say but i doubt that those have been really fleshed out yet. if it's something i publicly talk about i have to be able for -- apologize for not being able to fill you in that it's being worked out as we speak. >> here in the front row. >> american enterprise institute. you pointed out about pakistan being frustrated or hoping for pakistan to change its policy. do you think that wanted to change the policy would be to demonstrate a long-term commitments to afghanistan stability in and future and to convince the officers that a

television future of afghanistan and the current establishment will remain in place based on my own experience and my own discussion with the pakistan military they are not convinced. they were raising legitimate and sometimes exaggerated concerns and when i asked why you're not pursuing your concerns they said very frankly they are not sure that it would remain in place. whether it was about the surge are about the forces they have this timeframe. do you think that will change pakistan policy and you mentioned before that if the situation is that perhaps we might reconsider keeping the force post 2016 but is that

possible given that it is so difficult to do that in iraq? syndicate is a totally different situation in iraq than it is here. here the afghan government wants us there. the people in afghanistan want us there and their candidates want us there so unlike iraq where the prime investors the protesters that there's no way that your troops can stay here after that deadline there is a big debate whether the president could have tried harder but if you read the book what he said in the book is a depressed or if iraq wasn't going to allow any american troops to stay beyond the deadline president bush has negotiated and i believe that is

true he wasn't going to do it, period. he wished that he had agreed to let american troops stay there he might wish now that that's very different from afghanistan where the government wants us to continue. to answer your question if pakistan senses the continued part on the united states not just militarily but economically that we are there for the long term, and we are, and i hope we are committed will affect their calculus. and i think that 2016 is now as dempsey and campbell said if the

circumstances are such at the end of 2016 that's got to be reconsidered and they would recommend because it is only a recommendation would make the decision as to whether or not the following recommendation by the commander of either chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to continue some military presence beyond the end of 2016 but given the fact that both of those leaders have said they would make a recommendation to continue military presence if the circumstances are such that leads them to make a recommendation if they are going to do that because that is their duty that possibility israel as far as i am concerned.

>> we have time for just two more questions. >> what we need are owls. can you speak to those that you envision? >> eyes open and mouth shut. [laughter] it's not jumping to conclusions in understanding the history. we have to understand the history. what happened in the 50s in iran but still drives the

iranians or the old leaders who want a major change in iran by the way that both of the leaders who arrived in the 50s and the cia. we have to understand that history. it's part of a whole picture. we have to understand the history in asia. i don't want to go beyond that, but so i think the characteristics would be that they would really understand the history and keep their eyes open and understand our limitations as well as our power. understand or limits of power can understand the capabilities of power when you decide to use it use it wisely and effectively the power of coalitions i think

a wise owl understands its critical particularly in that part of the world unless there's some immediate threat to our own interest that you act with countries in the region far more powerful than to just have a western effort militarily which plays into the hands of the terrorists. that is a propaganda fuel for them. it's a western occupation. this is not a western thing that -- this isn't a western effort going on right now in iraq and syria. this is a worldwide effort against these guys and that takes away the propaganda club for isis that wants to talk about another crusade. i don't know if i'm addressing your question. >> [inaudible]

that is the basis of much of the problems in the region. [inaudible] >> i like the language, but speaking language. and i think it was when president bush began he talked about humility. that was the word whether he lived up to his own standard or not. that's a different issue, but i liked it when he started office. >> last question quickly. >> you mentioned the progress in afghanistan. there are key differences. the people of afghanistan rejected the status quo.

they were for improving governance and also, rejected that caliban ideas for the people facing threats but they want it to. we want to leave the elections behind and have the political world and to petition and ideas how to mend the relationship with the u.s.. so my question is. we need the support for the allies because they are spending a lot of money without the conditionality but now less

money but with more conditionality how to balance this kind of relationship. >> i'm not sure if this is directly responsive to your question but in terms of american support, which i believe is important, desired and important. in other countries it been then supportive either with troops or money what our publics believe in democracy is important and that's why i spoke about that issue because there's part of this picture that i can change it would be more balanced coverage in afghanistan. not just the bombs going on or whether the taliban is making progress in some parts, but the amazing part, the amazing progress under the circumstances in afghanistan including the

elections that's going to affect our congress shall response to what should be done in afghanistan in order to strengthen that relationship. and it's not really responsive to your question but it's what i believe is so important not just today that i've spoken about the importance in terms of what the impact of its reporting is on the typical american's view of afghanistan. if that doesn't become more balanced somehow or another they can't see that grass half-full in afghanistan but getting fuller. they can to visit a university where girls or going to school or a health clinic providing health services or whatever it is. if they can't cover that and say look where we have