it may postpone baby one,, possibly two years. is the intelligence community agree with that? >> i don't disagree with it, but i think there is a lot of fat tears that could play here. how effective such an attack was and what the targets were and what the rate of recovery might be. so there is a lot of imponderables there that could affect a guest immense amount of thought is about how long it could take to resume. >> has the intelligence community made an estimate of that issue? after an israeli attack? >> we have not come up with a number for the reasons i just kind of alluded to. it would be hard to come up with the number because they would have to be an assessment as well

as how well the rain is recovering how much damage -- how affect to the attack was. >> you indicated that israeli our lines on issues relative to a rand. do the israelis agree with you that they have not made a decision. do they agree with? >> i'd be happy to discuss them in closed session. >> thank you. >> by the way, i don't believe there is any today for for that closed session >> director, what is the intelligence community assessment of the performance of the afghan security forces and providing security in those areas where they've assumed the lead? >> well, so far so good. the areas they've been turned

over, the initial tranche has done reasonable low. >> the intelligence community would agree with what you just stated benefactress is one of the places were the intelligence community is in agreement with commanders on the ground in terms of how the afghan forces are performing. >> that if they are performing? >> they are performing well when they are back to a neighbors from isaf. >> thank you. a dod press briefing -- lieutenant general scott for i.d., commander of the joint command was in charge of operations in afghanistan describe signs of progress indicated that he gave a positive view of the progress to

build capabilities that the army and the afghan police and i think general burgess you indicated you basically share that view and also direct your indicated in much the same thing. this is my question to you, general. do you share general dempsey's assessment? i was just a couple days ago that the afghan security forces are on track to assume the lead for providing security throughout afghanistan right 2014 while still requiring support from coalition forces are key enablers flaked intelligence? >> yes, sir. i would be in agreement. >> the question on pakistan.

according to news reports, and the need report entitled state of the taliban 2012 included claims by taliban detainees that pakistan is providing support to the insurgency and are reportedly also portrayed though a strange and distrustful relationship between the packets in the intelligence, the isi and key insurgent groups including the haqqani network. this is what the report -- the document reportedly stated. there is a widespread assumption that pakistan will never allow the tablet and the chance to become independent of isi control. do you share that same assumption that pakistan will never allow the taliban a chance to become independent of isi

control click or? >> i haven't seen this report, syria. i think the pakistanis, via the isi would want to maintain visibility and influence. i'm not so sure i would go safaris to say a consistent dominance but they certainly want to have insight and influence in afghanistan particularly in a post-2014 context i'm remembering their primary interest is india. >> general comment in your assessment, and as the pakistan has been tension to take steps to stop the economy is use of the thought that were a safe event for conducting cross-border attacks into afghanistan quake

>> the pakistani army is within his capabilities in mind of its other obligations has done a lot in the fatah and has lost a lot in the process. through that my question is whether they have taken steps to stop the haqqanis. >> i don't excel. >> i would agree with that. if you look at what the pakistan army has done, they have cut forces from 2010 until now in terms of the number of days in their because they have a sustained an issue. >> relative to the reconciliation talks, what are the television's motivation for participating in reconciliation top? >> well, that's a great question, sir. i think that they want to do

believe achieves some legitimacy. they want to be players in some form, and a government of afghanistan. they obviously see us as the god and. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will not prolong this because this will be between you and them much deserved break for lunch. first of all coming thank you for your testimony today. i got to hear some of the opening and they also listen to senator mccain in his upbringing attacked about the increasing report of a link between al qaeda and iran in direct your lester the treasury department designated a number of high-ranking members of al qaeda who operate a facilitation network from inside of iran. there is a press release sent

out in the designations from david coe went, the undersecretary says iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world today by exposing the secret till it al qaeda and allowing it to fund the territory of eliminating another aspect to terrorism. that is a pretty troubling statement. what is your understanding of this secret deal between iran and al qaeda? >> aaron and al qaeda have had sort of zayed coming to a certain extent, a shotgun marriage. i think iran has harbored al qaeda leapers, facilitators, but under house arrest conditions, remembering of course that iran is a shia state that al qaeda is sunni, so they don't agree ideologically in the first place. they think iran wants of

quarters pays attention to our share of al qaeda and what we have done in afghanistan and iraq, next-door neighbors to them. so on one hand they have this augustana arrangement with al qaeda and allowing them to exist there, but not foment any operations directly from iran as well. so it has been this long standing shotgun marriage or marriage of convenience. acting probably iranians may think the money is perhaps al qaeda in the future as a surrogate for privacy. >> what they think that they might use them as a hedge against an attack? from the last? >> that is what i meant.

they may have that in mind for future use, but for now and the history has been to not allow them to operate freely in iran. >> you think they have not allowed them to conduct operations easy iran as a platform? >> i'll think they have commissary. not directly. not in the sense that by core al qaeda in pakistan. >> speaking of core al qaeda, it seems as though some significant progress has been made. your statements today say there is a diminishing operational port of the core al qaeda leader increasingly symbolic role. >> that assumes we sustained pressure on them. >> got some of my questions having dedicated over the years to go after the court leadership and their numbers on my roll. what do you think our resource

level needs to be going forward? what happens to al qaeda in pakistan if the final elements of the court leadership are taken out? >> well, they are about kind of guy. i think what we have to ensure is that they don't regenerate, that they don't recruit and continue to operate. so we will always have to be vigilant to prevent a recurrence of regeneration of the al qaeda leadership fairness plan not durational planning for the safe haven in pakistan. >> if we are successful in a continued effort, how would you prioritize resources we are currently using targeting the corner? what you think those resources would continue to be devoted to the al qaeda threat?

>> yes, sir because of the franchise's so-called, normally a q. a p., which currently we view as the primary threat to the homeland because of their plan to and in tend to attack either in europe or will be in the united states. then there are the variance in a q. i am in africa. some of these franchises emerged, trying on the ideology, will always be in the mode of being vigilant to the reemergence. >> thank you. and general burgess, thank you for your leadership with the entire workday here folks are going to provide us with the information we need is a country to be able to respond to these threats as a subcommittee i'm

continually impressed by the good work of your folks. to for that. mr. chairman, i will allow these witnesses who spent a lot of time here today the opportunity to take a much deserved break. >> i know you want to allow it, but i'm going to ask your questions. so despite your good suggestion, senator portman, i'm going to finish up with a couple questions. >> the last question had to do with motivation of the taliban. the next question related to the reconciliation taxpaying patient has to do it, not what their motivation you address, the western assessment of the prospects of success in any degree at those talks. >> fair, i do not know and we will not know until we actually engage. >> you have an assessment?

>> i don't know. i honestly do not know. i know the taliban object to is are to it grants the cause of some kind of the positive success in afghanistan. >> occurred in i believe that is the reason that such negotiations are being pursued, to see whether there's a path they have made overtures to support iraq and deletion resolution. >> i have expressed a real concern that the administration is considering transferring some taliban detainees from guantánamo to qatar and i've expressed this publicly and to the administration privately. it seems to me that such transfers have been premature

and should only be considered after the television is engaged in positive discussions of reconciliation. you're at least one there may be more express considerable concerns this morning and i just want to let you know there's real concern by many members of this committee about such a transfer in the apps of some real progress and real showing of good faith in meeting some other conditions. we are where the secretary of defense has to certify certain things before that takes place, but in addition to that certification, there's some real feeling that the people who would be released, even though they may be contained in qatar, nonetheless can have an effect on the battle by some control, some pop for granted that they

might utilize another race. so i want you to be aware that feeling on the part of any members of this committee. off all of us feel that way, but there's so much expression that you should be aware of it. my question has to do with this. has a decision been made regarding the transfer of detainees to guantánamo? >> no commissary. >> okay. dr. dirk, you stated that about a decade of funding increases to the intelligence community now has part of the defense budget cuts have been mandated by the law that was passed by congress that there is now a reduction in the defense department budget that includes the intelligence community budget as well. and that would reduce some

capability. my question is whether you are able to administer the cut in a way that any reduction in capability is manageable and acceptable. >> yes, sir, we can. not just to be clear, that is under the budget control act. africa sequestration, that's quite a different matter. >> minus the budget control it. under the 2013 budget request, which does follow the budget control act that came in for the administration a few days ago, that request in hooded or request to your budget and reduction has your support. >> yes, sir, it does. >> senator portman. you can take some of the brunt for delaying the launch for your good instincts and sensitivity. i took it on myself. >> thank you is for your fine testimony, service to a nation, for all the people who work with

you in the intelligence community and the great work they do, we are frequently talk about our troops and consider people in the intelligence community to be very much like our troops with the risks that many of them tape. so we are thankful to you and not in families because families need to support community as they do our troops and we will stand adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]