"to the cloud" is the name of book. big data in turbulent world. vincent mosco is the author. thank you sir. >> thank you very much, peter. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service ly your local cable or satellite provider. today the new america foundation hosts a discussion on u.s. hostage policy. panelists will discuss the challenges of rescuing americans taken hostage abroad and the debate over whether the u.s. should negotiate with hostage takers or pay ransoms. live at noon eastern on c-span2. now house homeland security chair michael mccaul addresses cybersecurity threats, recent attacks on u.s. companies and the role of the federal government in securing cyberspace. he also outlines new cybersecurity ledge shun which names to enhance the role of the

homeland security department in sharing cyber threat information with the private sector. from the center for strategic and international studies in washington this is just under an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. will come to csis. i'm james lewis. i will be hosting this event. we're fortunate to have an old friend family and a real expert. chairman of the house homeland security committee michael mccaul. in 2007, a couple of this had this idea maybe we should do a report on cybersecurity. so in talking to some people there is someone on the hill you really need to talk to. so he has been concerned with

this and an expert in the field now for years and years. works out to be about eight years, maybe a little more which is longer than almost everyone else in washington. so a true leader in the field. this is his sixth term. i don't know how he does it. i mean i would never running for election every two years sixth term. he was a former prosecutor. worked with senator cornyn of course did counterterrorism. first generation texan. is that really true? that makes you a 4g texan. i guess that's good. no, he is one of the true experts in the field. we're really grateful he made some time to come and talk. the format will be that chairman mccaul will make some remarks. then we'll go to questions an answers which hopefully everyone in the room will be energized and ready to ask. so with that, please thank you. >> thanks, jim.

[applause] i want to thank jim and csis. i remember doing that report -- whoever the next president of the united states is going to be. it turned out to be barack obama. i'm going to talk a little bit about the president's proposal on cyber and what is happening in the congress in response to that. he is providing leadership on that and you said an old friend. i know my hair is getting a little bit whiter, but we go way back. i remember when i was at the department of justice here in washington. then i was working with cornyn as attorney general. i had the idea in 2001 of doing a conference or a summit on terrorism and cybersecurity and a guy named dick clark was going to be my keynote keeper. the date of the event was september 12th, 2001. a little tort of prescient. but we ended up rescheduling

that. but serve by way of background how fast on this issue. admiral inman former director of nsa. very good friend of mine over time. we've come a long way. to the point where this issue finally has the attention i think of the american people and the congress. i formed the cybersecurity caucus to get the tanks of members and educate them on this issue because it is so important out there. i do want to thank jim and also denise for your latest report on cyber threat information sharing that you released. it's a job well done as always by csis. i'm going to do, i don't normally do text but in this case i have been, it is recommended that i do that and then i will open it up to the q&a i which always find very, i enjoyed having a wide discussion and dialogue.

so as a nation we're finally beginning too grasp the magnitude of the cyber challenges we face and particularly as they start to hit home for millions of americans. just last month our country's second largest health insurance provider anthem, announced it was the victim of an unprecedented cyber intrusion. the attackers gained access to a database holding the sensitive records of 80 million individuals, including their names, birth dates and social security numbers. in total the personal information of one in four americans may have been compromised by that cyberattack. attacks like this are a wake-up call that our cyber adversaries have the upper hand. as consequences get worse if we fail to reverse the tide. today, i want to discuss three issues with you, including the scope of the cyber threat our nation faces the government

cyberdefense role particularly at the department of homeland security. and how we have been enhancing it. finally some of my legislative goals this year to defend american cyberspace against detrucktive attacks and costly intrusions. first, we must recognize that a silent war is being waged against us in cyberspace. that we are losing ground to our adder versaris. the cyber landscape shifted quickly. at the dawn of the digital age our nation saw endless opportunities to generate prosperity by expanding our networks and connecting to the world. but today american prosperity depends as much on defending those networks as it does expanding them. we can not tolerate cyber vandalism, cyber threat, cyber warfare especially when they put our nation's critical infrastructure and secrets at risk and when they compromise american innovation.

yet our cyberdefenses have proven weak in the face of agile enemies. as i speak government computer systems are being hacked, proprietary data is being stolen from american companies, and the computers of private citizens are being compromised. most of it is being done with impunity. criminals, hacktivists, terrorists nation-states managed to exploit our networks by staying at the cutting-edge of technology. meantime our defenses have lagged behind. these faceless intruders regularly change their tactics and escape justice by masking their identities and usually they're operating beyond the reach of u.s. authorities. china, north korea iran and russia are among the most advanced of our cyber adversaries. even terrorist groups like isis are working to develop or acquire disruptive cyberattack capabilities. it is obvious that these threats

are escalating in sophistication and destructive potential. we are confronting almost daily with frightening new precedents, including nation states, launching cyber attacks on our own soil. this happened at least twice in the past year. the director of national intelligence, james clapper recently revealed that iran was behind a devastating 2014 cyberattack on las vegas sands corporation, the world's largest gambling company. nine months later north korea more famously use ad digital bomb to destroy computer systems at sony pictures. an attack that was not only destructive but was a cowardly attempt to intimidate americans and stifle freedom of speech. the impact of cyber intrusions are felt across america from kitchen tables to corporate boardrooms. the recent breach at anthem

illustrates how easy it is for ordinary americans to become attack victims. this attack follows intrusions at target, neiman marcus, home depot, and jpmorgan. all of which were designed to steal the personal information of private citizens. but our cyber adversaries are not just seeking to steal americans identities. they want our security secrets and our innovative ideas. we were reminded of this over the weekend when the state department was forced to shut down large portions of its computer systems in an attempt to expel hackers who invaded our diplomatic networks. they are believed to be tied to a foreign country. digital espionage extends into the business world. we know chinese hackers, for instance continue to breach corporate networks to give their own companies a competitive advantage in the global economy. in states like iran have targeted major u.s. banks to

shut down websites and restrict americans ability to access their bank accounts. make no mistake such attacks are costing americans at a time money, and jobs. in fact general keith alexander former director of the national security agency, describes cyber espi the loss of american inintellectual property as quote, the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. but the threat extends beyond the industrial engines that drive our economy to the critical infrastructure that supports our way of life. our adversaries are hard at work refining cyberattack capabilities that cancan shut down critical infrastructure, and they want to use these tools to threaten our leaders and intimidate our people in both times of paves and times of conflict. major cyberattack on our gas pipelines or our power grid, for instance, could cripple our economy and weaken our ability

to defend the united states. these scenarios sometimes sound alarmist, but we must take them seriously because they grow more realistic every day. in fact we saw a previous view of this in 2012 when iranian-backed hackers hit saudi arabia's national oil company, aramco, destroying 30,000 hard drives. simultaneously hitting our financial sector in the same year. in fact iran is hitting and penetrating, attempting to infiltrate our financial sector every day. to combat these threats and live up to our obligations, to provide for the common defense our government must take a leading role in securing cyberspace. we can not leave the american people and our companies to fend for themselves. the digital frontier is still much like the wild west. at this moment there are far more cyber outlaws than

convicted cyber criminals a clear sign we have a lot of catching up to do. we are really in uncharted territory. not since the dawn of the nuclear era have we witnessed such a leap in technology without a clear strategy for managing it. to establish order and defend americans interest in the digital domain we must map out rules of the road and clarify excuse me, responsibilities inside of and outside of the government. we're not quite there yet. in fact i would argue we're in a pre9/11 moment when it comes to cybersecurity. in the same way legal barriers and turf wars kept us from connecting the dots before the 9/11 kinetic attacks, the lack of cyber threat information sharing is leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. between the government and the private sector, we have the information needed to limit cyber threats and stop fresh

attacks. but we are not sharing that information. critical information is not disclosed. efficiently enough to stop cyber intrusions before they start or to shut them down once they have. and the danger of poor information sharing is really not a hypothetical, it's real. this month the head of the u.s. cyber command admiral mike rogers warned congress that our adversaries may be leaping or leaving cyber fingerprints on our critical infrastructure to signal their ability to attack our homeland. he believes that before he retires, we are likely to see a destructive cyberattack against critical infrastructure. if we are not swapping information about these threats, their impact is guaranteed to be more widespread and more severe. but the reality is, that 85% of the critical infrastructure in

the threat information, 85% of the threat information out there, is in the hands of the private sector. because of this collaboration between the government and industry is vital to homeland security. admiral rogers had it right when he said that cybersecurity is the ultimate team sport. no single entity in the the government or private sector can tackle these threats independently. each stakeholder must have skin in the game to prevail against attackers. this is where the unique mission of the department of homeland security comes into play. dhs serves as the primary civilian interface for sharing cyber threat information. and for good reason. dhs was created to stop terrorist attacks after 9/11 by connecting the dots and it is well-positioned to do the same to stop cyber attacks. the department's key tool, is the national cybersecurity and communications integration

center, or the ncic. which is quick by almost r billing the tip of the spear wean cyber threat information sharing and private industry. dhs estimated alone it received nearly 100,000 cyber incident reports, detected 64,000 major vulnerabilities, issued nearly 12,000 alerts or warnings and responded to is 1115 major die per incidents. we must improve information sharing and it needs to be a trusted partner to the private sector. its job in doing this is made easier by the virtue of the fact that the ncic is not a cyber regulator. it can not prosecute you. it is not a spy agency. it's a civilian interface.

accordingly the ncic has no authority to do anything more with the information it receives other than use it to prevent and respond to cyber attacks enhance our cyber posture. during the last congress i led efforts to strengthen our cybersecurity foundations including landmark legislation authorizing information-sharing at the ncic. we managed to get five cybersecurity bills passed into law for the first time in the history of the congress. this is now a starting point for our efforts in this congress. importantly we passed legislation, supported by both industry and advocates for privacy and civil liberty abouts. it was called a pro-security and pro-privacy bill. very few bills in congress that can say that. first we established a federal civilian interface at the ncic

to facilitate information sharing across 16 critical infrastructure sectors and with the private sector. second, we laid down the rules of the road regarding how information is shared. third we assured that americans rights and personal information will remain protected. fourth recognizing that human capital will ultimately determine our ability to succeed we positioned dhs to improve its cyber workforce. fifth, we enhances the department's ability to prevent respond to and recover from shy per incidents on federal net box -- networks. this brings me to my cyber agenda for this year. we made a lot of progress in 2014 but we still need to remove obstacles to information sharing while simultaneously protecting cyber interests of americans. right now the lack of liability protection for the private sector a problem. companies are hesitant to share information about cyber threats

and intrusions that take place in their networks. they fear that doing so could put their customers privacy at risk expose sensitive business information, or even violate federal law and the duty they have to their shareholders. as a result the vast majority of cyber attacks go unreported, leaving others vulnerable to the same intrusions. this is an urgent problem that needs to be solved now. the bottom line is clear. if no one shares, everyone is at risk. distributing threat information should not be punished, it should be encouraged which is why we need to create legal safe harbors for companies to be able to exchange thisinformation without fear of being sued. moreover better information sharing actually improves industry's ability to safeguard our personal data by allowing entities to keep prying eyes of

hackers outside of our digital health records and bank accounts. i'm pleased to announce we're aiming to resolve this dilemma and strengthen our cybersecurity foundations further. this week, i'm releasing the draft of a new bill that would further enhance ncic's role as primary federal, civilian interface for sharing of cyber threat information to enable timely actionable, and operational efforts between the federal government and the private sector. this draft bill will give protections for the volunteer exchange of cyber threat information, including government to private and private to private sharing. for instance, if a major bank falls victim to a cyber intrusion, it would not be held back from sharing details of the attack, with either of the government or other banks and businesses, as long as the sharing is done through the appropriate channels and does

not compromise the private information of customers and citizens. moreover the draft bill, would give liability protections for companies to monitor their own information systems and use importantly, and use defensive measures to previcinity intrusions. in the current environment companies do not feel they have adequate legal protection to take these measures. we're not incentivizing them to be a full participant in the safe harbor and in the ncic. right now, we are, i'm working with the house judiciary committee on crafting a liability exemption standard that addresses these issues and will be used in other cyber information sharing legislation in the house. with this legislation i also plan to continue our laser-like focus on privacy protections that so that information-sharing can be done without risking exposure of personal data. my draft bill would insure when

information about a breach changes hands, whether it is provided to the government or exchanged between companies, that it is theirly scrubbed for personal information so americans do not have their sensitive data exposed. it would also require the ncic to destroy any personal information that is unrelated to cybersecurity risk or incident. i take that issue very seriously. fortunately dhs has some of the strongest private at this protect mechanisms into national government and has privacy office. such built-in privacy oversight is the important reason why dhs the leading civilian interface for these exchanges. in fact privacy advocates already have endorsed the nccic's role as information sharing portal. the changes made by this draft

bill will increase what we know about the digital threats and in doing so will enhance american security. today we have a dangerous incomplete picture of the cyber weapons being used against us. more rapid and frequent information sharing about these threats will give us the ability to head off cyber adversaries before we do more damage both to the public and to private networks. the president has proposed steps to enhance liability protection. i was pleased that he did so because it moves the debate and the discussion forward on both sides of the aisle. i would submit, however it does not go far enough on liability protections, which is why our bill aims to create a more robust liability protection piece. the committee on homeland security will mark up this bill in the next few weeks. in the meantime we will continue

meeting with industry and private groups as we always have, to insure that we're getting this right and crafting the best solution to tackle the surge in cyber threats we're all witnessing. our plan is to take this legislation to the floor of the house by next month. and when we do so, we'll be forward leaning and eager to reach across the aisle to get it passed. this will be landmark. this will create how we deal with cybersecurity for the next decade. and now it is the moment to take action. these threatssare not just looming on the horizon. they're not hypothetical. they're real. they're already inside of our networks. and they're putting security and prosperity in peril. safeguarding the digital frontier is one of the leading national security challenges of our time. our generation will not back down from that challenge. it is clear that we've been losing ground against our

adversaries in cyberspace but better cyber threat information sharing will help us turn the tide and defend our networks against destructive intrusions. thank you so much for having me. i appreciate it. [applause] >> well, i will say that a couple of years ago chairman mccaul told me that he was going to pass cyber legislation. he was going to pass multiple bills. and at the time this was the start of the last congress, i thought, that will be really a good trick. but he delivered. so when he says he has got a new bill, i would probably bet on his one this time. i didn't bet the last time. so with that i have loads of questions. i don't know if people in the audience want to start. we have one in the back there. go ahead. >> good morning. i'm kevin, retired navy captain. great to see you guys wearing green ties for st. patrick's

day. i'm glad i'm not the only one. my question, how do we combat insider attacks which seems to be one of the biggest problems we're facing? there are always outside guys but there are insiders and with the u.s. being a global country in business and so forth there is a lot of openings for that kind of attack. >> well, yeah, that's very hard. you know, we're being infiltrated not only in the cyberspace itself but also human capital intrusions. and that's, that's a matter of more, human security measures. to insure through clearances and thinks like that that we have properly vetted individuals who are participating in the process, but it is an issue that i think is open to, i mean we're vulnerable in that regard. just like any spy can penetrate

you know, any federal agency in the physical realm they can also do it in cyberspace n our bill we passed last congress we called for more clearances. we heard that complaint over and over we need to issue more clearances. i would argue that the information we're give something kind of like when i worked with the joint terrorism task force. we had terrorist threat information. we didn't give sources and methods, gave the threat information itself. we're not really giving sources and methods but the actual malicious codes themselves. which if you've seen them it is ones and zeros. that is where the privacy piece i talked about is so important. it doesn't have personal identifying information but yeah, the infiltration by human spy elements is very real and you can't be 100% secure from that. >> we have multiple questions. let's get to two in the front and one in the back.

>> i'm, been in the cyber realm for almost three decades now and looking at homeland security and in the recruiting, you look at homeland security and look at work place retention and like satisfaction scores. so in terms of like getting people to join homeland security and even dod any agency what do you recommend those changes in terms of recruitment policies and strategies? >> well, one of our bills we passed enhances that in terms of, you know, the work place to be able to hire and retain more highly credentialed individuals. i would argue within dhs this is, this is the most innovative, most vibrant offices within the department of homeland security. i don't know if you been over the nccic but over the last

five years capabilities stood up. dr. phyllis sneck whod that up, undersecretary phyllis came from mcafee. brings extraordinary experience. we have partnership within nsa with a detailed program where they lend their expertise. with the legislation we past congress enhancing the work place there we'll get more and more talent. the problem is keeping them, you know. i remember, i went to work for the justice department because i wanted to check that box and move on to do something else and i ended up doing that i guess. but you have to recognize it is a great place to gain great experience but we also want to get the more experienced people coming over there. you can't keep them forever. this one of those i mean it is hard i mean, even the nsa has a hard time keeping good workers

because of the private sector it is so attractive and i mean one of the most lucrative fields out there now. is cybersecurity. so that is always going to be a challenge. i will tell you over the last five years that n kiick has really stood up with -- ncic has stood up with we'll credentialed individuals. anybody watching this podcast i would encourage them to working with the department of homeland security. it is going to evolve. we'll have several portals. i'm sure that question will come up. this will be the primary civilian interface to the private sector. the future of the ncic and dhs and legislatively too because it already has been authorized, it is a bright future i think for the department of homeland security. >> actually the fourth question on my list but we'll take, we have three more, four more in

the audience. we'll take them in sequence. >> thank you for your brief congressman. my question is, as you, your team drafts this bill, and in consideration that if it becomes, it will be legislated, that is hard to say what consideration has been given include other countries who are probably considering, you know, legislation to support information sharing and if you could talk about that in the context of u.s. multinational that also have footprints in those countries and is there any consideration for reciprocity if, said countries would ask for information sharing on your people here? . .

they will take what we do and try to apply in the own countries and there is an opportunity for an exchange of information. in our view within the civilian several threat streams of information, intelligence community, the department of homeland security and the fbi. that's all being funneled to the civilian interspace. i think that's a model that is going to play while editing the rest of the world will appreciate that model particularly post snowden. what i found is a lot of the high-tech companies prefer the

civilian interface because they don't want when they do international business they don't want the idea that the nsa is in their networks. so it's important for them to have a civilian interface. now if somebody wants to voluntarily work with the nsa to get information you bless you legislation providing for that. so we will have that portal and the dhs portal depending on which portal you prefer. that i know again talking to the tech capris i deal with, they look forward to the civilian with privacy protections when they do international business. but that's a great point to make, this will impact the rest of the world. not to get into all the other i'm on the foreign affairs committee, but after sony they raised some issues about what proportional response, what is aninactive national cyberwar for you what i try to grapple with questions are still unanswered today.

something with chairman royce we want to work on legislation to greater define, when you have a nation-state attacking like in case of sony, which was north korea, or the quds force out of a red and it's a nation-state what is the proportional response. >> chairman mccaul, thank you for comments. in dhs today, you have an undersecretary general taylor who is probably the most knowledgeable and understanding individual relative of information sharing with his time at dhs with his time the state department, with the overseas security advisory council and is time and the private sector. how does he accomplished this when he has a staff of 300 people? he can process the information needs. the fbi has 10,000 analysts.

he has 300. it seems he has a much larger task in front of him but he doesn't have the resources necessary to accomplish it. what can you do to help him make that happen? >> frankie taylor is i think doing a fantastic job. the challenge for intelligence and analysis is not to compete with the intelligence community and duplicate efforts, but rather provide a unique product that dhs can provide through primarily intelligence that we get through overseas tsa screening at airports and customs and border patrol and secret service. that intelligence can create a unique intelligence product. then i think you start trying to compete with the cia you would get destroyed. and in times past that was the failure of dhs. frank taylor is taking this new and innovative, new place. to answer your question i think the white house has proposed

sort of an intelligence sort of a melting pot if you will of information, something similar to the nctc national counterterrorism center but it would be for cyberthreat information. that could greatly enhance dhs is capability and general taylor in his office by providing this other entity that can synthesize all this information and feed it to dhs and then share. one important point that was not in my remarks is the real-time shirt is absolutely vital. if we can't do in real time it's worthless. you've got to stay ahead of the threat curve, and if he can't you going to lose in this gang. because the threat is always evolving. so real-time sharing, we are looking at machine to machine. we're trying to take out the human air as much as we can so this is really sharing machine to machine in real-time. >> we will just sweep across the

room. let's start over here. >> i'm from the council of scientific society presidents. where the long-term view of how we look at the world and as far into the future. you writing abilities they will essentially be the holder of the places where going for the next decade. i think one of the most important things that we have to focus on are the personnel who will be doing this kind of job over the next decade. they will not be the people who are trained as computer software engineers. they will be people who can think ahead many generations of thinking and jump to the areas where problems are not currently seeing. connect the dots that are not quite put there yet find them and put them together. there may be 10 or 15 centers in the united states that have that capability, but they don't have any support to do it. is that possible to put into

your legislative thinking? >> yeah, i mean again we had a bill to enhance the talent in the workplace last congress. that's an interesting point. right now the discussion will go around. that's something we'll take a look at. i agree with you that you need, you need creative talent, innovative talent that can think outside of the box on this one. because the threat is so ever revolving. it's not just the classic software guy although you need that. you also need the critical analytical thinker to put in there who can look outside the box for solutions. if there's ever an area where that's really needed, it's this one. so i take your point very well. >> while we are waiting out someone asked me about proportional response.

they said how but we close down the north korean movie country. i replied that people would probably be grateful. [laughter] >> its proportional difficult. >> good morning and thank you for your time. for many of the dod customers that we serve one of the biggest challenges is situational awareness. not only situational awareness but one is understandable all the way from your basic 18 year old soldier straight out of tech school through advanced defenders. what investment are remaking you mentioned some portals that they have at dhs and other efforts. what efforts are we making so that i as a private industry can go somewhere and understand the vector of the threat and how to react to it even if i haven't made a significant investment in defensive or i.t. infrastructure to handle that? >> the good news is you just hire the former head of the ncp to help you. michael white is one of the most

talented ashes good experts i would say not in this town but in the country. i was encouraged, companies to sit down with the doctor and go to nccic a look at it. your ability to get into nsa years ago were more unique. may be a little more limited. but nccic is very open. it's a very open information sharing portal that is there for no other reason than to share information. it's not there to do often support. it's not there to prosecute. it's not there to spy. it's there to provide threat information to the private sector. i would just say to anybody, extend the invitation to tour the nccic. it's impressive. i took my freshman member of my committee.

i gave him a tour of nccic last week and i think it's good to educate the members. they came back very impressed with the operation. >> mr. chairman i'm recently retired from those our where i led all the business with the intelligence committee so i'm going to out myself little bit by saying snowden was in my group prior to that time period i was a lifelong intelligence officer. do you have a position on the programs that he exposed? not the ones against foreign intelligence but things that are referred to spying i wouldn't call it that but but, and you know what is your position if you think they should be modified, how would you modify them? >> he did extensive damage.

my hometown of austin texas, south by southwest he appeared by skype and got a standing ovation. i consider him to be treasonous. spin i think we are aligned on that. >> its demo should but the damage is done to our national security of the united states and the amount of money. i read the classified report from dia maybe sort of you have as well and it is very extensive, very damaging. goes across a lot of different areas. in reading the document it was clear to me he didn't just think this up on his own. because of the areas he targeted to steal and then release. it appears to me he was directed by a foreign country. a lot of the stuff that he it deals with china and russia primarily, as you know. in fact, he is in russia.

he's defected to china, he is now in russia, which says a lot. the irony is he keeps exposing mr. civil liberties, bright exposing our government is so when in russia it is a police state and there is no privacy. so it doesn't make any sense to me at all. he's done great damage to our national security. is also done great damage to this advancing these policies in this town and advancing this legislation. one thing i'm worried about as we present my bill and house intel presents this bill which will deal with nsa, and i talked with the chairman about this the political environment in the post-snowden world right? and how come is that going to hamper our ability to move this legislation forward. what impact is still going to

have on this? i would argue my bill because privacy groups do a plotted, i think i've got an easier load. all i'm doing is adding liability protection and more privacy. i think i've got an easier challenge in front of me. i would argue house intelligence it's going to be more difficult because they've never codified that information sharing with the innocent. i support the. i think we should have, any portal that member companies want to go on want to go to on a voluntary basis we should support that. we don't want turks in silos. we want to have a complete picture of information sharing. i will say he has done great damage economically and to our national security, and he is done great damage to advancing the policies we are discussing here and potentially to the legislation. >> in a couple of months we will

probably do a series of events that tries to put the snowden revelations in the context of crimea and syria and isis because it's a very different world than when that's done first came out. more on the other side. >> good morning. dovetailing on that line of questioning, what about those companies that sent investment information sharing bills that they don't want to entertain the idea until they see nsa reform in the post-snowden era? is that going to be another factor this time around getting the bill signed by the president? >> yeah. i mean people have this law take place before fisa reform. and i think that's part of if there is any overall strategy, which is kind of hard to find in congress these days, i think that has a good ending to the. the idea to tackle this piece

before fisa reform comes down. now, is that the cart before the horse? i think they just want the idea we do cybersecurity first and then tackle that. but your point is well taken. >> good morning. i'm from the rand corporation. many of us regarded the sony that as quite new in the sense it was an attack a nation state directly on our constitutionally protected liberties. so i'm wondering if you have any thoughts about proportionality of response in light of this attack and when it happens again? >> i completely agree. i think sony, look we've had attacks in the past that sony really captured the american people's attention and curiosity because it involves hollywood.

let's be honest. and it involved free speech. you're right, those are direct attack on our constitution, free speech. and in addition to being, it was a nation state, and it was very highly destructive what they did. going into your office, turn your computer on there's a school in crossbones and all of your data, similar to the iran contact, all of the hard drives are completely destroyed information stolen, a lot of private information stolen that was leaked. so that was a very sophisticated, highly destructive attack as you say said on our constitutional way of life. what is a proportional response? i don't know, jim a talked about their motion picture industry. it's a hard question to answer, but i do think a response is necessary, whatever that is, and to maybe if you of all the tools in the toolkit that you look at but you've got have some response. i would say getting an economic

is a good response. you can talk about stuxnet, and i can't talk about where that originated, hit on iran and there were some cyber responses to north korea. can't go into detail about that but i do think that cyberattack merits a cyber response. to show as a deterrent. because if they can do that with impunity, without any response, it's just like my kids you have to have discipline and a deterrent to stop them from continuing doing this but i think one point, at some point we have to talk about it like we did with the csi document about treaties with other nations when it comes to cyber attacks. are we going to have a nato like alliance? if one nation gets hit with a nation-state cyber attack of is that an attack on all the alliance members in the cyber world? that's really forward thinking,

but we have to look at this as a global event and an international issue, you know i think call for an international response and alliances. i mean, china and russia and iran did you know north korea if they do this there will be consequences. without consequences they will continue. >> i'm from political for cyber. with the bill your working on how do you see those being blended on the floor if at all and are you saying that your bill in no way the information going to dhs will be shared with any other agencies? >> know. i mean if information dhs will have to share the discipline portable come to the intelligence community, fbi and dhs. the information shared by the private sector, this is a piece we haven't discussed, and it's an important one.

the information that we get from the private sector will be shared with the federal government to defect -- to protect and defend this country. i've been very encouraged by the sense of patriotism of companies that come into my office and say, you know mr. chairman, this is such an important issue it's not just about my company anymore, it's about the united states of america, defending the nation, and the want to help and be a part of this information sharing process. so that information is a two-way street. 80-85% of the information we don't have and is not shared private to private and not shared with the federal government then it's very to protect our defenses at our nation from attacks. as you know every federal agency has been hit, and the country is under attack. >> what about the other part?

>> i can't really speak do that. i can't get out of my jurisdiction other than to say i know they have been marked up in the senate. i anticipate that the house intel will mark of a similar type bill that will have other portals in there. what we say is we think dhs it's the primary portal, delete portal, because of the civilian interface. the fact you can't be prosecuted. it's not a spy agency. we think it's really the place for a safe harbor. however, if a member company wants to go to nsa as a portal we will allow for that as well. so i think house intel will do with some of these other portals, nsa being one, the other one being treasure. i know a lot of the financial sector members there's a reason why we would want to stop the.

we want to preserve current relationships of information sharing that exists and not shove those dead and say there's only one portal you can use. i think it's important to say there are multiple, several portals, and we want to enhance that information sharing through those portals, through the liability protection peace. that is a cornerstone of this legislation that will enhance information sharing in greater and fuller participation. >> maybe i will do a final question him and if we have a little time which is your chairman of the whole committee. you know you are one of the recognized leaders in cybersecurity. you've been doing that for longer than almost anyone else in washington. i say that in a positive way. what d.c. the dhs agenda being for the next couple of years? what would you like to see the department to do what should the focus on? not just cyber but across the board what is dhs' priorities

and agenda be? >> dhs, a lot of it is about travel and preventing travel. i think they've got talk about kinetic threats, the foreign fighters going through turkey into syria iraq keeping them out of the united states is the number 100. to johnson, a lot of respect for them we called the dual threat. you have the for fire and homegrown extremists. you've got a peristyle attack go on the train and come back for the whiskey shopping mall ak-47 in a shopping mall doing a lot of damage. we are very concerned about keeping that threat outside the united states. in addition to the course on propensity, the premier bomb makers within al-qaeda that are very sophisticated, they

have nonmetallic ieds and they still to get these things on airplanes. that's a great challenge for dhs. protecting the american people. the border is a big issue as well but then the area that has no borders and i think this is the future does not already are, is the cyber peace. that's one of the more exciting innovative engines coming out of the department i think will have lasting consequences for the department of homeland security. moving forward. nccic i think will evolve into not on the primary but it would be to go to place in the future for the private sector. and so that's really how i see i see the kinetic threats on the one hand from isis and al-qaeda, and i see the cyber threats, particularly as these more rogue nations and terrorist

organizations get separate capability, we've got to stay ahead of the curve. it's going beyond that an espionage to warfare and destruction. you can buy a lot of the stuff already on the internet. and so i think this is the area, they say what keeps you up at night, there are lots of things but cyber has the probability of getting hired, but the consequences are severe, too. you've got probably a great small kill tactic probably high but the damage you know, that stuff but relatively low casualties but it is human casualties. the cyber piece, high probability the consequences could be extremely severe and damaging. and with time it will get worse. >> great. >> it is great news, isn't? >> we are always cheery here at csis but you know, i am really grateful that you can talk to

us. i'm grateful you took some time out of your schedule. i know how busy it is you were busy before your chairman. i have no idea what it's like now. so thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> starting tonight profiles of congressional freshman. we begin with republican steve russell of oklahoma who talks about his career in the army his new life in congress and his

near-death experiences as a baby and as a child. >> i nearly died several times from birth. i almost died at that time. i had the opposite what type of my mother and the rh factor was different, and she had had a couple of miscarriages prior to me, and i nearly died at birth. so she's always told me that i was her little fighter, and you know, that does something to a child. you are not going to quit you will persevere and you will stay with something into the get it done. and then i survived a bout of appendicitis, my appendix actually ruptured and is about six or seven hours before had any medical attention to deal with that. didn't know what it was. felt better after it ruptured then peritonitis second. was in intensive care for weeks,

two major surgeries and my folks had that's how i made, they felt they were going to lose me. >> you didn't know it ruptured? >> no, i did not i had a stomach ache things hurt then i went outside and played. it was on a saturday, and then by that night i was doubled over in pain. i remember asking my mother during that time i asked her i said, am i going to die? she was honest with me. and she says we don't know. she said, but we are praying and we believe you're going to make it. >> we will bring you a different freshman profiled each night this week at nine eastern starting tonight with congressman steve russell of oklahoma on c-span. >> now a discussion with three former u.s. ambassadors to afghanistan who served under president obama and george w. bush. they look back on the diplomatic roles and also consider the

future u.s. role the planned withdrawal of u.s. troops from relations with pakistan, and the prospects for disagreement with the taliban. the forum for sosa by the middle east institute. it's about one hour and a half >> welcome this afternoon to the middle east version of the three tenors. the washington version is three ambassadors. and we are very pleased about the same level of talent that you got from three tenors. i'm delighted really to begin this session. this session which is part of the series sponsored by louis hughes is sitting down in front and where we have been able to have a fine really i think a fine production of presentations

over the years. and again, thank you for making this possible. [applause] our three ambassadors are indeed well known. ryan crocker to my left was ambassador in afghanistan, and more recently than our other two participants. but is well known not just for his service in afghanistan but elsewhere. and so we are delighted that he could be with us. is 18 at the texas a&m university presently. and zalmay khalilzad, to his left, is at the center for strategic and international studies, and serve as our special envoy to afghanistan from 2001-2003. and, of course he was at the

united nations and some other places. and ron neumann, well known to us here in washington for his presence at many events. ron was the ambassador in afghanistan from 2005-2007, and is presently president of the american academy of diplomacy. now, some of you may wonder afghanistan, middle east institute, i have to remind people about when the middle east institute was created in 1946, afghanistan was included as part of the middle east. this is foresight really. we were already thinking of the greater middle east, and, of course when pakistan came into being in 1947 we threw pakistan in as well. so we are not new to this part of the world and we are

delighted to have you here today and our speakers. and so the format here is going to be that i'm going to pose some questions and have our participants respond to them. we will leave enough time certainly at the end of this session for your questions. so let's get started. gentlemen, this panel is going to be essentially looking forward in the role of the united states in afghanistan and in the country's future. but before we do that can i ask you, looking back what katie doing your time in afghanistan what gave you the greatest satisfaction? and what was your greatest disappointment during that period that you were serving this country in afghanistan?

the web would like to start. there's no order of things here. okay zal. >> well, for me, first of all i want to thank lew for his leadership on this and thank him for his service in afghanistan during the period that i was there. and delighted to be here with my distinguished colleagues, especially ryan. he and i have done quite a few things together. >> some of which we will not tell you about. [laughter] >> but for me of course, i was in afghanistan, besides having been born there and spend a lot of my early life in afghanistan twice in an official capacity. one was as the president's envoy right after the bonn agreement and that lasted until 2003 and

then i went as ambassador from 2003-2005. so i had to think about kind of the emotional sense out of have returning after 30 plus years and seeing kabul devastated a dead city essential when i arrived in january 2002 my first kind of trip after 9/11 flying in a small plane. i think when i landed at kabul airport international airport that now is very busy japanese have built a terminal there is a new vip lounge that's quite impressive. i remember a very elderly man who has since passed away wishing a latter to the plane so i could get off and we had a

little bit of a hard time kind of synchronizing the latter in this little plane that the government had provided -- ladder -- to take me to kabul. if i had to reflect on the positive, great positive experience was that advocate -- afghanistan was very divided politically. the last pro-soviet takeover in 78 and then even fighting each other, there are a lot of afghans in the audience our afghan americans and others who are experts. and then my soviet come again, the mujahideen fighting the soviets and then the mujahideen fighting each other and in the taliban emerging and then the northern alliance fighting the taliban. so there's been a history of not coming to agreement on key

issues. politics of helping as the united states in the aftermath of 9/11 did play a critical with the help of the united nations. they played an important role to get an agreement on the constitution and participate in the constitution and getting the there is groups. i know that some might ask about the taliban not being heart of the process at that time, and be happy to engage on that as to what exactly happened or did not happen with regard to the taliban participation in the early period in the political process. but it was a high point that i felt myself, and there were so many of them because the school

opening was a very emotional day. i will never forget until i die that all adults who are in the audience, including a couple of foreigners at the time were in tears the day that schools were e. opened. both my colleagues will remember in march was the opening of the school year after so many years president karzai then he may think of for someone it happened he was chairman. that was a high point but i think the constitutional agreement, the compromises that were made, that they seized the moment and did agree was a very positive for me. on the negative and i wanted in my colleagues, on the naked i would say that my own frustration, and i would value ryan's comments because he served on both sides of the

border as a distinction, and i would say that our frustration to my own frustration, the inability to get an agreement between afghanistan and pakistan pakistan, kind of cooperating against extremism and terror and facilitating a settlement that would've brought taliban into the political process was my greatest frustration because i could see and sometimes out of frustration i would speak even publicly that a century was in the process of being developed that was going to make the task much harder, with take a lot more time and would be far more expensive than what we initially were willing to invest in afghanistan. that changed over time but our initial strategy was to be a minimal footprint. as some effort, not a lot we

didn't want to own the problem. we wanted the afghans to take care of it. so that they think i was in terms of big issue was my biggest frustration. >> ron? >> they are question to answer actually. trying to tease out one or things. on the side of satisfaction, partly just connecting to afghanistan, i didn't grow up there has been wanted by first did this in 1967 and was all over the country all the way through the center and up into the center. just connecting with the society and people was enormously satisfying. one of the things that continues to give me enormous satisfaction

is that i begin to see there was the younger generation of afghans, the twentysomethings, 30 somethings who are really a different group and to really hold out the promise of a very different, better future for their country, if we can get through the short term. some of the old leadership, i had great faith that can go a long way. and the longer run and with the younger leadership to i remember going to what's now the american university of afghanistan which zal get a great deal of help to get started, and all of us have worked on the project but it was very emotional for me because it's on the grounds of what was the american international school in kabul where my brother graduated from high school. so to go back in the very early days to find distance as inspiring as they were. i suppose professionally perhaps most satisfying was the recognition that we were working on the energy side in too many

stovepipes and that we working too much, not wrongly but better focus had become so internal that some of what we are doing what sort of like building an extension cord without making sure we had a socket to put into. and starting the discussions forgetting the afghan government to start discussions with uzbekistan and turkmenistan that led to the energy agreements that were essential to put power down through the lines are like everything else what does getting those things done was a great deal more effort than conceptualizing what needed to be done. but it reminds me talking about this, something my father told me years ago which is that as an ambassador you neither finish what you start or start with you finish. you come and pick up what your predecessor has done and to build on it and you start things which you don't necessarily

finish. it's not a one year efficiency report cycle. i would say my greatest discipline -- disappointment was the inability to convince washington that 2006 was going to be a bloody, bad year. the uncertainty getting much worse. and we reported this. we predicted it. than general eikenberry agreed. iraq was just sucking up the energy and, not wrongly because iraq had its share of problems we got no traction. the most visible example of this was that we had recommended $600 million, which seemed like a very big number then, now it seems kind of small, but it seemed like a big number for additional economic assistance to use in a variety of ways including some of the north that needed stabilization that was in a combat area. out of that request them 600 million months of your

credit wrangling, at the end of the day we got 43. we got less than a nickel on the dollar. actually much less because 11 almost a quarter of that was actually not aid for afghanistan but a paper transfer to make up for the cost of debt rescheduling. so i choice for money on the ground we got 32 out of the 6 million we asked for. it was a manifestation of the fact that we lost a lot of valuable time, and even when it was possible to see that we really going to need it. anyway, it's a different comparison now. in zal's first tour this was a period when everybody thought the taliban was really defeated. there was no neon sign flashing on the hill the set by the way you've got to be done by 2006 the war is going to start.

but by 2005 we were able to analyze what was happening and nader was going into the south and you know, we did know are able to predict with great measure of assurance that the insurgency was going to get very very bad and very bloody in the next year and we got absolutely no help to do anything about it. and that certainly is one of my greatest disappointments. somebody asked me at a much later period after big budgets came in, you know, how does it feel to the essential been right? i said, bittersweet because it's nice but it doesn't help. >> you might have gathered from ron's remarks that his father was the ambassador to afghanistan from 1967-1973. ryan? >> as zal noted we were both engage in afghanistan after the fall of the taliban.

i reopen our embassy there the beginning of january 2002, and i couldn't even land in kabul. the runways were completely inoperative so we had to come at bagram go through miles of devastation to get to what was left of the capital. that perspective left me with a sense that the glass was really at least half-full when i returned stubbs goalie and then as ambassador in 2011. given the absolute nothing with which the country started, the achievements always seemed to me even greater than the obstacles. it also left me with a deep sympathy and affinity to the

afghan people generally, and to president karzai in particular. we certainly had our rough innings with him but given what he went through the absolute nothing with which he started and what he was able to oversee i think history, and i hope this country, is going to look at him anymore kindly light than may be the case now. so we fast forward to my time there. the achievements that occurred on my watch, for which i really can't claim credit but i will because in the course of my crew i was blamed for a lot of things that really don't think were my fault. [laughter] the achievements were to put in place a bilateral and international architecture for the long-term security and

stability of afghanistan. and these things came together fairly quickly in the spring and summer of 2012 period a strategic partnership agreement between afghanistan and the united states that i led the negotiations for i saw as really a historic moment. we have never had that kind of written alliance, if you will, between the united states and afghanistan. president obama flew out to afghanistan to sign it with president karzai the beginning of may. and it seemed to me that we had a bilateral block in place. we then went to all of us went to chicago later in may for the nato summit. and what that summit did was

solidify international commitments to the long-term our year international support for afghan security forces. they are we were much motivated by what had happened in afghanistan after the soviet defeat. the afghan forces literally soldiered on with the soviets gone. and they kept on fighting until the money ran out. that's when the state effectively collapsed and the civil war was on. so giving that second block in place was a very, very important. and then the third came in july of 2012. the tokyo economic ministerial in which the international commuting then stepped up to the economic side of the challenge

which -- with some $16 billion pledged and economic support against afghan undertakings that they developed themselves for steps they would take to ensure that these funds were indeed a good investment. my greatest disappointment was the flip side of this. in which the united states seemed to lose interest in afghanistan. and a fundamental truth here whether it's in iraq or afghanistan, you don't end the war by withdrawing your forces. you simply leave the battlefield to your adversaries. and it's not just a failure to fulfill the promise of the strategic partnership, but we are america. where america leads others will

follow. that's what we demonstrated in chicago and in tokyo. if america doesn't lead everybody else find something else to do, particularly if it involves money. so we are gathered here today in what i hope and the like to believe is the beginning of a new dawn for afghanistan the united states, and the international community in the wake of president donnie -- president ghani and doctor abdul is a very positive you're just a bit ago. so from hope to depression and hope again. some of us never learn, keep on hoping. >> you just mentioned the visit of ashraf ghani, president i sure hope on and ceo doctor abdullah here last week and there was much talk him down on

what a contrast with your between that visit and our relationship with god karzai before. and, in fact -- with karzai before. how fortunate the united states is to have these two men. yes, to men because in many ways they seem to complement one another. if given the opportunity. let me ask in this light, how at this point in time can we best be sure that these men are going to succeed? anyone. >> i will make one comment that my colleagues and others, they know the subject better or as well as i do. first of all they have to succeed if afghanistan is going to have a future. together they have a mandate. 70% of afghans who voted, voted for one of the two of them. we're not quite sure which one

that we know that they all voted for one of the two of them. so they have a heck of a mandate together. they have neither one, despite what each believes, has a mandate if they separate. i believe their personal relations are good. i believe they want to make this work. my colleagues can speak to this as well. there are a lot of tensions in this relationship. and that's inevitable and there are a lot of tensions that are not in a personal relationship but, in fact that each rides on a desperate group of supporters that are not necessarily loyal lieutenant but groups hungry for the own share of power. that's a very, very tough act to follow and to manage and we should remember this is still a weak central government, for those of you who have some historical background, in many

ways you can compare which have in afghanistan to the middle ages, a period of state consolidation. it's not about decentralization. first of all it's about having enough authority to control. so in this very difficult situation, the united states has deployed a fairytale for role. one thing it has to do is maintain its support, military and financial. without that everything else falls apart. the second thing it has to do is to be willing to help moderate and arbitrate is a very difficult cases some of the fortunes but not to be in all the time, not to be responsible for governing afghanistan. dr. abdullah, daca have to have that responsibility not to be jumping in taking responsibility not to be telling other people how to run things. but at the same time they will

be issues where the face and the prestige and other things make it almost a century to have a third party involved. they could, do not believe they could have reached a political settlement they had without our intervention. that kind of work is what we need diplomats for. it's not the kind of work you can do with the committee in washington. it's an artform. it's not a summit, but, and if it is done will it's not going to show very much. but it is i think owing to be an essential piece of helping them get the success. >> i would like to add what ron said. generally women look around the world, the history of unity governments is not a successful one. they generally do not work.

on the other hand i know both of these gentlemen quite well. ashraf ghani, we were together we came to america together since high school, in other words. and dr. abdullah for a lease since the soviet war 30 years plus. and i think they have been witnesses to the tragedy of recent afghanistan, where this not accepting each other and wanting all for oneself and nothing for the other side. has produced great tragedy for afghanistan since they've been witnesses to the recent history. i think the agreement between

them was not easy but i know that in the discussions prior to the election, both talked about this concept of a consensus a need for consensus on some key issues and part of the platform. that they need to accept each other and the winner-take-all approach would be a disastrous for afghanistan given the complexity of the place. i agree with ron that our role was indispensable in helping bring them to agreement, but i think the principle of wanting to work together was there. that makes me in that

recognition makes me hopeful but it wouldn't be easy. it would require constant work on the part of the two leaders. they are i very committed to it in my judgment, although necessarily on the team, position for power, so many slots that you have and that our natural rivalries for those slots from the two teams. but i think it would require work on the part of the two leaders, but also i agree with ron's point it would require we continue to be attentive and helpful. i think there's been a qualitative improvement in our relationship with afghanistan and with the team. and there was a period however lest we forget that we had a

tremendous tremendous a positive relationship with president karzai before it went sour. we had have to take part of the blame for what happened, and, of course -- and he too but we cannot take it for granted during my period at least. i had hardly any problem that we could work out with president karzai at that time. and that was much praise in this town, his skills were compared to president clinton of one point when he came for a visit to address congress. for him to be the successor was a huge he was lucky in that regard but so we can't take

the honeymoon that we are in with the current team automatically continues. it will require work, it will require we learn lessons from our experience with president karzai, especially why it turned sour. we need to pay attention not to repeat some of the mistakes that caused that the souring to occur on our part. similarly, i think of afghans one of the things that i learned, and i will end with that, is when i went back to afghanistan after 30 plus years i thought the afghans were kind of anti-foreign and maybe kind of would not want to much of america. and what i discovered in the course of the first month -- we were that the same time, that period was the greatest there was fear of abandonment rather

than on balance of sort of at that point in any case of being kind of run by or dominated i america. >> simply put, marvin, it is to be the long-term strategic partner to afghanistan about which we have an agreement signed by two presidents thing we will. -- saying we will. zal is exactly right in talking about a fear of abandonment. in the run up to the visit we heard that all of us over and over and over again. the fear that we're going to leave afghanistan alone with the prospect that it would not fare much better without us than it

did with out us in the first half of the 1990s. so that is fundamental. we do need to learn how to manage that relationship particularly with the two principal leaders. they rely greatly on the u.s., both bilaterally and as a leader of the international community but they are also profoundly afghan nationalists, as is president karzai. and we do have to respect that. that is not an impossible challenge for diplomacy although sometimes we fail at it. so it's knowing when we need to be engaged in have to be engaged, and again we've got both good examples and bad examples. since 2001 what to do and what

not to do. i would agree with my friends matt it's rather unlikely afghanistan would be where it is today without our intervention, postelection, to help broker an agreement that each side could live with. and we will have to be attentive to the tensions inherent in that relationship, and other tensions and contradictions throughout afghan society, in particular that while president ghani and dr. abdullah, we all saw it here in washington, clearly can work together and engaged together. it's probably less true as you go down the line in their respective camps. so we are going to have to be alert to that period but most fundamentally we have to be

clear, we are in this relationship for the long run. without it the centrifugal forces are going to take over. it's also extremely important, vis-à-vis pakistan. i begin have served on both sides of the drawn line. speaking of the drawn line i have found made many years in the middle east, the greater middle east, i had to account for my presence in afghanistan and pakistan somehow, folded them in that when things are going badly and finished appointing us, blame the british. [laughter] you know, for the pakistani to understand well, this is going to be 1990 all over again, where they go from being the most allied of alice to the most

sanctions adversaries literally overnight. the pakistanis need to have the confidence that we are a long-term strategic factor on their border and, indeed, in their country. if we want them to quit hedging bets. >> i take it you're from the marketer that all three of you agree that neither we nor the afghans have a plan b. that this is we have this one perhaps this one opportunity. i think that i also detect here especially from things you've said before, that the three of you question the plan here to have an exit all american military forces by the end of 2016. the president at the moment has been flexible with respect to

the troop withdrawal for 2015. but have stood quite from it on the exit in 2016. what is it going to take for him to take his mind as you see it? how likely do you think that is? and with what consequences? zal? >> i think afghanistan has been lucky to a degree because of the experience in iraq and also the rise of isis isil. in the sense that we have had an experiment almost that, in the case of iraq that both brian and i served in -- ryan.

you, too. of course, i forgot you came from iraq, afghanistan. exactly right. so that our total departure of forces and having the office executed cooperation and the embassy follow a series of development that was not good for iraq, not good for us not good for the region. ..

i believe that afghanistan with the investment we have made in the building of the security forces in the commitment made that ryan mentioned in chicago the afghan security forces. and with some precedents, that is a success in idea because if you can go from 120,000 in the case of afghanistan iraq it would be a lot more. to a force of 5000, 10000 work with the environment and the afghans so that they truly can manage a security problem.

that is a model of success in my view. sure we would like this to be done in five years or intend. i could tell you stories in part because we started slow in building the security forces initially. we wanted only forces the afghans could afford. given what i experienced ,-com,-com ma what afghanistan was like, they could hardly afford anything. i remember being admonished to get your hands and let the afghans deal with these issues. i would be happy to get my hands on this thing if i could find it. because there was hardly anything there at that time. what they could afford was hardly anything. plus there is enormous uncertainty on terrorism and what has happened and what the

afghans would like us to maintain forces. not very popular in that region to have forces there. so we have afghanistan related interests. we have terrorism related interests. we have other broader, regional interest that i think justifies maintaining the residual or is it beyond 2016. now whether the president will change his mind on this issue i think is an indication that is willing to have a conversation about. i think the conversation was had during this visit. i think he has some political imperatives for not appearing that he easily changes his mind and maybe he is also thinking to keep this point, and maybe to get something from the afghans that they will deliver on their part on the unity front, on reforms that have been committed. but i believe that -- well i

can't predict. i think the geopolitical requirements, but the afghanistan and the air of national interest is needed to maintain a residual force and the case of iraq demonstrates that in my judgment. >> anybody who was looking for controversy among us insert why not find the net. i would agree completely with my colleague. iraq is instructive in a pretty dramatic and sad way of what happens when you say you are ending a war, but all you are doing again is seeding the battlefield. and our disengagement as i

indicated earlier from afghanistan and indeed from pakistan after the soviet defeat is instructive. we can look at iraq for parallel but we find the example )-right-paren afghanistan decades earlier. as zal and ron had said this is our vital interests. there is something moving from a calendar based timetable to a condition space timetable where i've long argued they needed to out and in iraq can certainly need to be in afghanistan. this is the intersection of american interests and american values. we i think are unique among major states as a nation founded on values interweaving none

with our policies. it is very difficult at times as we all know. and we are seeing some of that of course today around the world. you ran the side of the newest greatest generation in afghanistan. the afghans who have come of age post-taliban exemplified by the graduates of the american university of afghanistan. they are like no other generation afghanistan has ever produced. open to the world plugged in wired up. they think in terms dramatically different from their parents and they are the long-term guarantee for security and stability in afghanistan. but they have got to have the chance to solidify their present and their influence. women in afghanistan and is

sometimes seems to me are trying to have it both ways. we urge women to step forward. we supported them as they did so. and now or at least up until president ghani's visit we were singing to them good eye, good luck. the good luck would not be very good we are going to draw down of what happens happens, not a problem. in addition to the security ramifications that we have already addressed, there are fundamental issues about who we are as a nation and as a people. are we going to let the young people we encourage the girls and women of afghanistan that we have encouraged just taken the mac quite literally by pulling out prematurely and letting

things unfold as they may. we saw the horrific episode with fargo and recently. it isn't just the taliban. there are some dark forces. they are moving in the right direction, but they will need us for some time to come to ensure that they don't back fighter part in a way that threatens both our security and calls into questions the what we really hold us american. >> i totally agree with my colleagues and therefore i won't say anything and so i will try not to. i think brian's point about the moral implications is really important. president obama in the last six has made a number of incremental

decisions that i would call positive and correct in terms of slightly extending the timeline for forces and allowing air support for afghan and then extending the time for deployment. those are all in my judgment very correct decisions. the way we are making them however, robs them of much of their psychological value. ryan and zal we have all made the point about the need for americans to remain a long-term partner. a big piece of bad if the afghan and regional police that is so. the incremental way in which we approach policy continually undercuts the belief that we are really there for the long-term. one of the things i worry about is that we will for a month to

month and year to year continue our support from afghanistan but we will do it in such an incremental and haphazard -- and that we will never get the political value of those decisions with either the afghan people or the insurgents. it is both the nature of the decisions in the way they are made that is important. i totally subscribe to the notion that we do not have the ability to end this war. we have never been about ending it. we have only been about pulling our own forces out and leaving a nasty, bloody war to somebody else. i wish we would be honest about it. the other thing we need to think about in this regard is what is that we are planning to do about nato. nato does not have a time limit per se. but it cannot stay without us an up or make any decisions about our decisions being made for us.

in a combat role we will leave the training mission even if they are under the embassy. if we are training, we ought to want help. we want other people helping us train. it is the washington vehicle. we know there will be an assistant requirement for afghanistan. if we are going to be doing assistance, would not help enough. if other countries have their troops involved, they will be more inclined to make assistance commitments. so we had to be focusing very hard on extending to some degree the nato mandate beyond 2016. however we constitute our part of it, so that we don't just fall off the edge of a cliff. there are 26 nations steering a supertanker is easy compared to getting turns -- you know you don't just get easy adjustments with 26 nations. while we are busy contemplating our own future, we need to speak

with nato policy. thank you. >> we want to leave time for questions from the audience here. let me post one last question from the panel here. how do you view the prospects for an agreement with talent and? what priority should be united to his today's strategy of finding terms on which we can hope that the afghan government and the taliban can agree on. if in the course of your remarks you can indicate briefing pakistan figures than this please do. ron? >> i will keep this short because i know my colleagues have something to say. i agree the political solution is highly desirable.

i think which is not saying there is no possibility of a military solution you can lose. i think it is very important for americans to understand that a political solution for a negotiation that leads to a in everybody more or less decide they can't win does not come by running around with your tongue hanging out chasing a political solution which suggests desperation. we have almost nothing with which to negotiate anymore, except we could betray the afghan government on their own. negotiations are not our real business. they are the business of the afghan government. bush's support them, but we should not try to be in front of them. secondly the second we can give to the negotiations of the belief will continue support for the afghan government and military will not lose.

they don't have to win. they have to be able to not lose. everybody has to believe that. i'm just going to stop there. i believe in us. i think it is a long-term solution. when you look at all of the conflicts ended by negotiation, you have to look at a very very long-term proposition in which you should suspect fighting will get worse after you begin negotiations as people seek to improve their position on the battlefield so that supporting negotiations means of supporting long-term help to afghanistan financially and militarily accepting that they are in the lead and accepting that negotiations will have to pass through to get there at all will have to pass through combat. >> we tend, in a recent time i mentioned with the unity government end quote billy.

-- globally. we started this fanfare, commitment and enthusiasm and we don't tend to end them while. on this specific issue of reconciliation or agreement i know that the government in afghanistan is trying very hard and made a number of adjustments unilaterally to encourage reconciliation or a peace process in agreement. they have intensified engagement recognizing that pakistan plays a vital role in facilitating our help in our

hindering such a project. they have moved against afghanistan said there'd be no reason for pakistan. they have sent some cadets to be trained in pakistan, which is not very popular in afghanistan in the history of the relationship and the government taking that step. they have frozen some military assistance from india. let's take another look at this. it has intensified relations with china in part because it wanted to impact pakistan, recognizing chinese pakistan and

having china more involved is also seen by the leadership as indicating that pakistan their fear of india being so involved is balanced by wanting the chinese involved also. and saudi arabia is another country that is bad in relations with already in part because of the impact that could have or is likely to have on reconciliation and relations in pakistan. now on the negative side of the ledger in my judgment one is the uncertainty about the long-term u.s. commitment to afghanistan. already the dramatic reductions in the force president i think

probably leave some in the taliban leadership, the military wing to say lets divorcee, now that they are largely on their own, with the u.s. help. i believe that beyond 2016, there will be none. that will encourage them to wait to be what the balance of the forces of power with the after this coming season and then maybe even after 2016. so that is one issue. i believe the government recognizes that they need to prepare and push for engagement relatively quickly. i think there is some disappointment that the meeting

that they expected to see happen with representatives of the leadership of the taliban have not yet occurred. they have taken a meeting that would've happened by now. but at the same time, they need to prepare for intensified fights for the coming season and also pushed simultaneously for reconciliation with all of the elements i described. my own judgment in the near term prospect or not is very promising because of the uncertainty with regard to the u.s. longer-term and the desire to test the forces without as much help internationally as possible. there may be opportunities with the government with elements because the taliban is quite fragmented and diverse.

perhaps the more opportunities in that domain then a comprehensive settlement even if a meeting occurs, there may be a period of both fighting and perhaps meeting, even if the meeting does occur. >> i think everything we are saying on the subject has been sent by my colleagues, but that won't talk me from saying it again. two critical elements were noted as ron said this ultimately has got to be an afghan matter. a peaceful future in afghanistan is not going to be negotiated by the united states. it has to be done by afghans.

and as zal said, we have got to persuade both allies and adversaries as well as those on the fence that we are readiness for the long run. we have many great qualities as americans. we have a few shortcomings. one of those is the lack of what i call strategic issues. you know we are good at going in with drums and bugles when the campaign started. and when it gets hard, costly blood and treasure and is taken way too long meaning that it's not over a week from friday, we start finding other things we want to do. what has happened in the greater middle east over years of this this is something allies fear and adversaries count on. our greatest contribution to negotiations is not really being part of it. it is demonstrating to friend

and foe alike that at this time we are in it for the long run. that is the only way the calculus in pakistan and among the taliban and i think is going to change in a way that would make a negotiation first possible and ultimately successful. there is something i think we can do if and when this serious talks are held. and that is to be sure the afghan government understands the importance of involving women in the negotiating process. i talked about this before. you know what happens to women in afghanistan in the long run is very much a concern of ours. this is not in employment opportunities. it can be measured in lives. we want to facilitate and foster

a solid negotiation and ultimately the prospect of a solid agreement. the other half of the afghan population has got to be an integral end key part of this process. >> at this point, we are going to obtain your questions. i ask you to stand as you offer your question and identify yourself. please keep it short. and if you wish to direct to a particular panelist, do so. rate down friend here. please wait for the microphone. [inaudible] -- i was appalled --

[inaudible] i thought it was a disaster. [inaudible] it became sort of second place. i would be interested whether -- i don't know how productive it is but if they send things back in afghanistan -- [inaudible] >> i will speak first because i know the least about it. [laughter] you know the united states was and is capable of doing more

than one thing at a time. yes, iraq soaked up a great deal of resources. but i would suggest from would suggest from my perspective and this goes back to something zal said, what effect did our engagement in afghanistan was the initial position that this was going to be an economy of force mission and we were very slow to come off of that. iraq may of been a contributing factor but it was the initial mindset that we were going to keep our investments in exposure in afghanistan to a minimum. i will always remember in those early days in 2002, having take a shot at the british and a pat on the back, and enormously capable isaf