as soon as we get hit from the other side of the border, we're calling to them to the pakistani military. in other words, the communication channels now are more mature. it's not perfect. i don't want to -- i don't want to make this look like it's all okay. we've got a lot of frictions along a badly demarcated border in some areas. but at the same time it's the one area that held in there when everything else kind of came off the track. and it's the one area we're making progress on. we've exchanged sops for cross-border operations or -- or excuse me. near border operations. so when we're operating near the border or they are, we have a shared standard operating procedure for how we will communicate. >> thank you. that's encouraging. >> yes, ma'am. >> admiral mcraven, i want to also say while i'm talking about our visit to afghanistan, we visited one of the special operations' efforts in one of the villages along the pakistani border. and it was very impressive. talking to some of the young men who were serving and hearing their enthusiasm for the work

that they were doing was really inspirational. so thank you very much for that. >> yes, thank you, yes, ma'am. >> i'm pleased to see that the navy is considering enhancements to the virginia class subs. in new hampshire we pay a lot of attention to what's going on with the virginia class subs because they're worked on at the portsmouth naval shipyard. but can you talk about the work that's being done there and whether you're confident that the investment in that submarine technology is going to be what's needed and what additional capacity that will allow us to be able to do that is important? >> yes, ma'am. so i don't lead you astray, i'd refer to take that question to the record and get back to you. what i can tell you, when it comes to special operations engagement with the u.s. navy, particularly as the navy begins

to build or refurbish submarines, we are always part of that discussion. so whether it's the virginia class or other classes, the navy has been exceptionally helpful in making sure that new special operations capabilities are incorporated into the submarines because, as you know, navy s.e.a.l.s and some of the marines special operations forces work off submarines quite often. >> thank you. we will then submit that question for the record and get a more detailed explanation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator shaheen. senator manchin. >> as an american in west virginia, i appreciate your service. i'm very proud of what you do for our country. i've got problems, as you know, with the presidents that we have and the direction we've gone in afghanistan. i've been very open about that. with that, what you all do is

unbelievable. what i would like to ask i think starting with general mattis is that, you know, i know that now we have reported we have 150,000 contractors compared to 94,000 men and women in uniform in afghanistan. to me, that is troubling. do you know the percentage of the contractors that would be ex-military? how many of them were military, sir? >> i -- i wouldn't even hazard a guess. but i'll take the question, senator, and try to get an answer for you. you mean of the americans who are -- >> here's what i run into, sir. in the airports i stop the so-called soldiers of fortune, if you will. i ask them where they're going, going on the front line in afghanistan. i ask them also, how many of you are ex-military. almost to a "t" 100%. i said this follow-up question, if it had not been for the contracting that attracted you with higher salaries, would you still be in the military? almost unequivocally, yes. something tells me something's wrong. then when i hear people talk about we're going to be cutting back the department of defense

and weakening and they want to play political football with this, to me we could cut back on contractors. and basically put a certain amount of that towards our men and women in uniform and in your budget i've just noticed and admiral mcraven, your request, we waste more money with contracting a year than you have asked almost half of your budget. to me, we could strengthen our men and women in uniform, strengthen our military by basically drawing down what we do and the amount of money we spend on contractors. i don't think that should be a political football. that's just common sense in west virginia. we say we're going to take care and strengthen the people that basically are on the front lines and not continue to spend so much money in attracting our best and brightest when they get their ten years and, boom, they're dropping over. i don't know if you all can speak on this. if you sometime want to meet with me privately on this. but, to me, when i go home, people ask me, what are we doing?

why are we spending so much money trying to rebuild a nation in afghanistan that doesn't care for us that much and doesn't want us there? we've talked about all of the -- we've got more people of our so-called allies killing americans since february than we do al qaeda and all the terrorists. i don't know. general, comment on this and, admiral, what you believe. how can we better strengthen your budget and do the job we're allowing contractors do now and do it much more economically? is that doable? >> sir, i'll tell you the budget i have right now meets all the needs for u.s. special operations forces for fiscal year '13. >> would that be saying as long as you have the contracting support? if you didn't have that contractor support and we asked you all to do the job that maybe they're doing, could we do it more effectively and efficiently and -- >> the contractors play a very vital role. no one should diminish the role they play. it is expensive. but there are places and times

where having a contract force works well for us as opposed to putting uniformed military to do -- whether it's a training mission or a security guard mission, et cetera. there are some places where you would rather have uniformed military than contractors. so while i don't want to speak to the total size of the u.s. government's contracting force, what i will tell you is that there are i think an appropriate balance between uniformed and contractors and the contractors do a -- do a good service. >> as a civilian what i found disturbing is when i was over there, i've been there twice now, and i talked to the different military. i said when are you getting out? we'll be getting out. are you going to do this? no, i'm going to go over here and make three times more. that's disturbing as a civilian taxpayer and lawmaker. go home to west virginia and explain our best and brightest are going out because they're going to go right back and do the same job in a civilian uniform making three times the pay they were asked to do as a military. >> sir, we had some of this problem early on within the special operations community

after 9/11 where we saw a number of our senior ncos who looked over the fence, if you will, at what the contractors were providing and decided to kind of make that leap at the time. however, i will tell you our experience within special operations is most of those folks regretted that move. and while it is only anecdotal in terms of their service, i can tell you the few that did get out, and while -- while we had a trend, we were able to correct that trend through appropriate bonuses and pays, but the fact of the matter is when we were able to correct that trend and talked to some of the soldiers that was airmen, marines, a lot of them said, hey, we prefer the service. when you look at it from a cost benefit analysis, we talked earlier about the retirement benefits. let me tell you, sir, you're much better off staying in the military over the long haul. the retirement benefits, the retirement package is very

sound. it is very good. a lot of these young fellows really just didn't do the basic calculation early on. >> there's -- as you know, i'm troubled by this. but also our presence now with the turn of events in afghanistan, i'm understanding now we have slowed or basically stopped the withdrawal of our troops now because of the violent situation we have or the really unstable situation. is that slowing down or are we still on course to draw down, general mattis? >> no, senator. we have not stopped it. we have pulled the first 10,000 out. we have the plan coming out. i think i'll have it on the first of april for the next 23,000 to come out. which we'd -- >> you're talking about just people -- just our men and women in uniform, correct? >> that's correct. >> not contractors?

>> that's correct. >> so contractors we could even keep the same or beef up? >> yes, sir. or reduce. >> yeah. i would hope that. i'm saying that's not been the case. if i may ask this, general. i'm so sorry. i know our time is limited. how many contractors do we still have in iraq? >> under the u.s. military, sir, probably -- i need to take it for the record. i think it's probably around 500. they're doing training. there are people who can teach iraqis how to use the new artillery piece they've bought from the united states or the new tank. there are people who do that kind of training. >> i know we've said we're -- we pulled out -- as a military we pulled out of iraq, correct? >> yes, sir. >> we still have contractors doing the job military would have been doing if we left military in there, correct? >> i have about 200 military personnel there, sir, under the office of security cooperation iraq that is a lieutenant general who is under the ambassador. they do the transfer of the actual equipment when it comes in. he has got, then, several hundred of instructors and i'd prefer not to take them out of our ranks.

i need them in the serving units. >> i know my time is up. if i could just finish up, as a west virginian and the people in west virginia who support the military as strong as any state that i know of, we believe that we can strengthen your position, the military position's, the men and women in uniform. and by being responsible with the budget. it could come off the backs of the contractors that we've built up so -- i want to make that very clear. we do not nor would i ever vote to weaken our military. i would strengthen our military. but i would deplete the contractor and the amount of money we spend on contracting to do that. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator manchin. senator shaheen or senator manchin, do you have any additional questions? >> i do, mr. chairman. it's not quite 12:00. come on. we have a minute.

>> we have more than a minute if you need it. >> i know. i'm just kidding. general mattis, i would like to go to syria for a minute. i understand there have been a number of questions this morning about the opposition in syria and who they are. i'd like to raise a question about the weapons and the stockpiles that are there. earlier last month, senators gillibrand, collins and i sent some concerns. according to a recent report syria probably has one of the largest chemical weapons programs in the world. so there are two concerns. first is what happens if those weapons are left unsecured? could they potentially disappear and be used throughout the region? second, obviously, is there any suggestion that assad might actually use these weapons against the people of syria?

i wonder if you could comment on both those questions. >> yes, senator, i can. in the conventional weapons, the large stockpiles there are certainly a concern. out of the conventional weapons, the biggest concern i have are the shoulder-launched anti-air missiles. and you understand the danger. on the chemical weapons, you're right to characterize it as one of the largest stockpiles in the world. if left unsecured, it would be potentially a very serious threat in the hands of, i would just say, lebanese hezbollah, for example. because they're in close proximity. at the same time, they're not easily handled. obviously, it takes very trained troops to do that. and so i'm not saying safate comple if they're left unsecured automatically someone can grab them and use them. they may end up frying

themselves. but i think that it's going to take an international effort when assad falls. and he will fall. in order to secure these weapons. i don't think he will use them on his own people. but that is speculation. and we have not seen any effort to use it yet. but we're watching very closely. i think that what would stop him would be the international condemnation and probably the call to arms it would bring if he used chemical weapons. but right now that's purely speculation, senator. >> given our experience in libya with man pads, is there -- should we be more comfortable that in syria those are likely to be better secured than they were in libya? >> i think, perhaps, better secured until assad falls. and then we'll have to see what -- if the forces guarding

those retain control or not. >> and is there any planning under way to look at how the international community might address those weapons if -- if -- when assad falls in terms of coming in and making sure they are secure? >> i'm sure that would be a key part of the planning. >> but nothing under way now? >> item i'd prefer to speak priy with you about that. >> to both of you you, you probably have more responsibility with the men and women's boots on the ground than any other branch. where do you see the greatest threat thwe have as the united

states? >> in the near term, my biggest concern is iran. that is the nation that with four different threats, its nuclear program where it's enriching more uranium than it needs and has rebuffed the u.n. efforts to try to monitor it, they have the long range rockets an ballistic missiles that they can use. and hold other nations at risk. they have their maritime threat. and then they have their mois, their secret service surrogates like lebanese hezbollah. i think iran is the biggest threat, senator.

>> admiral. >> sir, i would agree with general mattis that iran is probably the biggest threat, but i don't think we soo take our eye off the ball in terms of the other networks that are out there. if you look he leadership, you begin to see the franchises and east african al qaeda in terms of al shabaab and what they are doing in terms of north africa and the other al qaeda franchise movements. these are something we need to continue to pay particular attention to because that cancer tens to grow at a slower rate. >> and i would hope that you would be forthcoming in a private setting that we should sit down an see how we can best make sure that happens. but again, thank you for your service. i appreciate it very much.

>> we whether stayed a journed. thanks to you both in terms of your testimony. i had to leave here for about an hour so i could be with the israelly prime minister and a number of senators and that's what the main focus was. that meeting is as much of our concern these days. so your identification of iran as the great number one threat we face i think is well placed. with that, we will stand adjourned again witur you and t withho

in today's white house briefing, jay carney fielding questions about the killing of 16 afghan civilians by an american satisfy sergeant. you can watch the briefing on cspan.org and on our facebook page. we're asking to you weigh in on the impact of the afghanistan shootings on u.s. relations. log on and share your comments.

and coming up live tonight, the alabama republican part city hosting a forum at the alabama theater in birmingham. speakers include newt gingrich and rick santorum. texas congressman ron paul and former massachusetts governor mitt romney declined to participate in the event. we'll have it live tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. >> at some point the federal government has to be able to say to a private business that owns critical infrastructure that we all depend on that an enemy might attack, that we have to say to them you've got to meet this standard of defending yourself and defending our country. >> in the year 2010, the estimate is that there were 3 billion cyber attacks on private and government computer systems. 3 billion.

so this is a let that is growing expo simply must address. >> senators joseph lieberman and susan collins detail how their cyber security bill differs from other senate bills to be considered this spring. the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. c-span's 2012 localhicle ci book tv and american history tv on the road the first weekend of each month. march featured shreveport, louisiana. >> mr. know wnoel was a local m. he started accumulating books when he was a teenager and continued until he was in his 80s. over his lifetime he accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a gem in the . it's one of the books we're most

proud of. it's in the original binding from 1699 and it was once owned by a very famous scientist. you can sees his written his name i. newton. around we are not pulling it out so much anymore because it is starting to flake away on the title page. >> an american history tv looked at civil war era medical practices at the pioneer heritage museum. >> pioneer medicine is a long stretch of what it is today. you can consider that the things that we take for granted today when we go to the doctor, things like the instruments being as germ free as possible or the doctor has washed his hands before he decides to work on us. we use the term lossly for doctors when we talk early medicine. a loft the doctors in our region were self taught or they had worked under somebody else self taught and they were getting ready to retire. so they would just learn as they

went. >> our lcve tours continue from little rock, arkansas, on c-s n c-span2 and 3. now a look at the history of political advertising dating back to the 1952 presidential campaign and how negative ads involved in the process. speakers include media analysts and journalists in a forum hosted by the new america foundation is just under hour. >> we're now going to shift gears. i'm very excited for this conversation.

george could not be here with us today due to a last-minute situation in new york. but we have representing deutsche jamie muta who i was told is natively digital. i'm very i guess trigged by that. i know you're a key part of the interactive division at deutsche. an advertising firm associated and represented clients such as microsoft, pnc, and volkswagen and many others. we also have with us michael hughes who is the president of the martin agency. mike has been hailed by ad week as one of the now nine best kree aift directors in america. his agency is one of the best creative agent jis in the world according to ad week and many others. his firm's clients include ge o geico, comcast, and walmart. i'm sure none of us have seen

any geico ads recently. he played an ad orrer two if we're really, john that are quite different from the others that we've seen today. >> hello, i'm a mac. >> and i'm a pc. >> we speak each other's language. >> now who is this now? >> this is that new digital camera from japan. just came out. >> wait, wait, wait. you speak her language? >> absolutely. everything just kind of works with a mac. >> ah. [ speaking japanese ] >> bon journo. hello. hello, i'm a mac. >> i'm a pc. >> we can't do it. >> i don't know why you're so

hard on himself. >> why don't you say something positive about pc. >> okay, pc, you're a wizard with numbers and you dress like a gentleman. >> pc? >> mac, i guess you are a little better at creative stuff even though it's completely juvenile and a waste of time. >> maybe you should come in twice a week. >> the reason i chose to show those, and this is on me, is to dispel a little bit the idea of there's no such thing as negative advertising in the business realm as opposed to the political realm because obviously that campaign that many of you -- most of you will have been familiar with was a pretty edgy comparative, you know, negative take, but again, it feels very different. mike, if you could get us going talking about the extent to you

feel there are such advertising exists when one business takes on another and why is it that perhaps we see a lot less of it than we do in the political sphere. do we see less of it than in the past? i don't have a historical take there. >> when you come away from the apple and mac ads. you like the apple, you like the mac. he might be pretty tough, the commercials themselves might be pretty tough on their competition. pepsi comes away liking coke in a couple of years but they come

away tongue in cheek and you come away liking them. political advertising is rarely to build a brand over time. it is for that one day of the primary vote and that one day of the election and then everybody is on their own again. you come away with a choice. you don't want to vote for a that flip-flopper or take a stand. after a while you don't feel as good about the people who are doing it. and i think that's an inevitable result of going for the one-time sale at any cost. and jane myers' wonderful "new yorker" article as she quotes saying, if you're in this business, you have to figure out

if i don't -- if i don't win this election, i die. all these things, they rev up the emotion like it's armageddon if you vote for the wrong person. they go for that one-day vote as opposed to building a long-term meaningful brand. i think the one exception in the last 30 years was reagan wanting an america. it helped his long-term brand it was because pretty positive. >> on the coke/pepsi comparison, i'm thinking as you were alluding to it, i believe thinking of the super bowl ads where the pepsi ad i think was for pepsi max where they show the coke distributor trying to sneak a pepsi in the store and all of the cans come down. i think this year's iteration, the coke guy won some sweepstakes and the pepsi comes

out and he's mortified. do you have to have a unwritten rule that you have to g rule fer you go negative? >> i think your point about the long-term branding is really important. negative advertise for a politician can just bring down their negativesnd tt's fine, that's why we see the trend for negative political advertising to go to those third party groups, tive. for us, we want a brand to stay likable. we talking about coke verse pepsi but i'm just as likely to go buy gatorade or orange juice. it's not a forced choice. because of that we have a different need to keep you liking the brand and keep you liking the ad. i think humor is one of the tools we use to get some bite, you know, usually it's satire, but it keeps the brand likable. you don't want it to blow back on you.