the battlefield for whatever reason we've been able to entice him to come off. and that's a continuum. and where we have seen some pretty substantial success in the last year is in the area of reintegration. my own experience from iraq and the anbar province was when we began to see the individuals reintegrate, to come off the battlefield because they had for whatever reason -- either their grievance had been resolved or they had elected finally to give up violence -- that began a process of the decomposition from the bottom up of the insurgency. and when enough of them begin to come over, the leadership has to listen very carefully. what's happened in the last year in afghanistan, which i think is very important, is that the karzai administration, through a minister within the afghan peace and reconciliation process and the peace committee, peace si

council, he is the current ceo, if you will, of that organization after the assassination of rabbani, who headed the high peace council. we have created assisting the afghans, an afghan process, reintegration process throughout the country, a bureaucracy which has a provincial peace committee in each of the provinces and a joint secretariat to support it. on 1 january of 2011, there were about 600 insurgents who had reintegrated across the country. today there are 3,800, and there's another several hundred that are in the process of reintegrating. there are a number of others that have gone home that we call informal resbre gators, but we don't know that number and there's even more. that's something the enemy, the insurgency, has to account for. they've attempted to intimidate them, but very few have gone back into the fight, and i think that's a very important advance. and your question i think addresses that very issue spp. >> it does. and i appreciate that response.

i would hope that the reconciliation effort might be successful with the top leaders as well. but i suspect that's a much more difficult challenge. >> likely will take longer, sir. >> take longer. well, thank you. again, thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator sessions? >> well, chairman levin and ranking member mccain have i think had a great deal of wisdom over the years in dealing with the issues we face. i think senator levin has indicated his strength, i believe his -- and support. general allen, he said our soldiers deserve our support and they have it in the plans that i believe you're working on. senator mccain has likewise said that. secretary miller, dr. miller,

you said that afghanistan will meet the challenge, i believe, in your opening statements. that expressed a confidence that we can be successful. you quoted again president obama's statement, we will build an enduring relationship with afghanistan. senator mccain talked about the vision that we had for the success in afghanistan. we've had bipartisan support for that. and we're having some difficulties now, at least certainly in the press if not on the ground. we had the problem with the koran. we've had the problem with afghan soldiers killing our own soldiers. we've had the problem of our -- appears one of our soldiers has killed unjustifiably men, women, and children. and president karzai has been making a series of very odd

statements as far as i'm concerned that reflect perhaps frustration but also causes me concern about where he is. so i guess, general allen, you're the person on the ground. i ask this question of general petraeus when he went to take -- lead the surge in iraq. and the question is, in your best judgment, working for the american people, beyond r and you're required to give this congress your best opinion as a military leader, concerning our effort there, is it an effort that, if we move smartly ahead, following the vision that we've had that seems to be a bipartisan vision, can we be successful? and if you -- if the circumstances reaches a point where we cannot be successful, will you tell us? >> i believe we can be successful, senator sessions. and i will tell you the moment i believe we cannot be.

>> how would you describe these series of negative public events on -- how does it impact your efforts? it can't be good. but we are members of a great congress, of a great nation. we're engaged in policies that have ups and downs in them. and sometimes we have events that change your minds. is this one of those situations in which you believe that the adverse events can be worked through and that this is not a fatal event in our relationship with afghanistan? >> senator, i believe we can work through them all. >> how do you see president karzai and his comments? when i was there with senator lindsey graham and senator mccain and several others, i was taken aback by some of the comments that were made. and you were with us.

and that was just, what, three or four weeks ago. and senator mccain made clear his concerns, crystal clear. it was an important, open, direct exchange i thought was valuable. but i've noticed that president karzai has made some additional comments of the same nature since then, and that is a cause of concern to me. what can you tell us about where we stand with regard to the president of afghanistan? >> senator, you have put your finger on the issue that there is frustration with these events. and these events in many respects have struck a blow at the core of the relationship. and this president, president karzai, has to be able to speak to the afghan people about putting our relationship in the context of the long-term relationship with afghanistan.

so i understand his frustration, and i understand that if it was just one event he would have a particular view on it. but we've had several events of late -- the urination video, the burning of religious materials to include the koran, the shootings, and in the aggregate, those are significant events. but i believe he is committed to a relationship with the united states. he was very clear in a strategic -- in a video teleconference in which i was in attendance with ambassador crocker recently with the president. he was very clear in his commitment to a strategic partnership with the united states. but these incidents can't be ignored. and he has to explain those incidents to his own population. now, some of the terms that he has used i reject. i reject the use of the word

"demon" when it is applied to the 130,000-plus troops that serve in isaf and the u.s. forces among them. and i reject the equivalence of our forces with the taliban in the same sentence. i understand why in frustration and in anger those words can come out. but on behalf of our forces, on behalf of the american people and the populations of the 50 states of isaf, i reject that term. those magnificent troops are sacrificing every day. many of them are sacrificing their lives. just before i walked in here, i was given a report of one of our troops who, when he saw a small child underneath one of our mraps in afghanistan, threw himself under the vehicle to pull that child out so it would not be harmed and in the process

perished himself. now, that's sacrifice, and that's dedication to a cause, just as william stacy, sergeant stacy, who was laid to rest recently, dedicated his life to this cause. and i believe that president karzai understands that. and i believe that president karzai appreciates that, as well. and he has said that publicly. but it's difficult to get past some of these recent incidents, and in the process, words might be spoken that we all regret. and i reject the term "demon" as it is appliesd to our forces an satanic and inhuman. those are terms that do not apply to us. but i can understand in moments of stress and anger they might be uttered. >> thank you very much, general allen. i have to say that the people who observed your leadership in afghanistan, universally,

extremely complimentary of what you're doing and the leadership you're providing. your integrity is unquestioned. and i take direct comfort in your honest analysis. dr. miller, if you wanted to comment on that, my time is up, but perhaps you'd like to also comment. >> senator sessions, i would simply like to associate myself completely with general allen's remarks and to say that it's been an incredibly bouncy period of a few weeks to about a month and that during that time, during that incredibly difficult time, we have also seen, in addition to conversations between president obama and president karzai, videoteleconference, telephone call, secretary of defense meeting with him, and we've also seen general allen conclude the memorandum of understanding of one of the most sensitive issues we have to deal with in detention operations during this challenging time. to me that's a signal that there

is resilience, and it's also a signal of general allen's terrific leadership that is just as you've described. we need to move forward. we need to have an enduring relationship. and we need to, as general allen said, we need to understand that tragic events will happen, that we will continue to have challenges, but that the strategy under which we are operating, the plan that we're implementing, is succeeding and we need to have the courage and wherewithal to continue. >> thank you. chairman, i just would note that senator graham engaged president karzai about that strategic agreement. and when we left, we were worried. we didn't know what would happen. so it is a very, very important agreement, and i'm glad it's been worked out, it appears, because without it i think we'd

have problem, and with it i think we can develop an enduring relationship. thank you. >> thanks, senator sessions. well said. senator webb. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, let me echo the comments of a lot of people um here who appreciate your leadership, have known you for a long time. it's a very, very tough situation that you're confronting, and we're appreciative that you're there right now. let me ask you to begin with, two years ago, about two years ago, general jim jones, as the national security adviser, estimated that there were fewer than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. how many al qaeda would you estimate are in afghanistan today? >> i think it's about the same, sir. >> about the same. >> yes. >> i would say as a starter, in terms of our mission of denying al qaeda sanctuary in afghanistan we've been pretty successful. i would like to make another

point. when we're talking about the frustration of the american people with how long this task has been taking, there is obviously a difference between toppling a government and developing long-term security practices inside a country that's gone through what afghanistan has gone through. but it's rather frustrating, i think, for a lot of people in this country when we are defining success at this point as having an afghanistan military and police force that would be capable of taking charge of its own security operations by late 2014, which is about 13 years after 9/11 and after this taliban government was toppled.

and we know the reality we're discussing here is that's not really the end of the war. it's a time when we're looking at a point where the afghanis will be able to fight their own war or take care of their own security measures. and we know. this is a culture that does know how to fight. i think we're being presumptuous talking about how we train up the afghanistan military and police forces. they've been fighting for hundreds of years. and, in fact, we should start -- or we should remind ourselves that it was actually the afghanis that threw out the taliban with the assistance of some highly qualified but small number of americans. we didn't do it. they did it. and i was very taken by one of the comments that you made, general, in your testimony when you were saying that they are actually better, better than we expected them to be or that you had expected them to be, the

forces that are operating right now. in fact, from your comment, they're better than they thought they would be. so let me ask you, if they're bert than we thought they would be, would one of your considerations when you're making your recommendations be accelerating the pace of our military withdrawal? you could actually see that as a signal of success of our strength rather than a weakness? >> as i said to the chairman, senator webb, i'm going to think -- in the recommendations that i make to the president, to the chain of command, a very important consideration will be the state of the nasf. they are better than we thought they would be because i believe, as -- and i know of your own personal experience you have advised, you have seen forces that just require the opportunity to get into the fight to come into their own. and that's what's happening now. so we're going to watch this

very closely. we're going to do all we can with advisers to accelerate that process. and if part of the outcome of my evaluation is that there is a reduced requirement for u.s. or isaf combat power, i'll make that part of my recommendation, sir. >> good. thank you for that. dr. miller, you're in a little precarious situation here today, a lot of us understand that, in that your confirmation is a week from now to officially occupy the position that you're now acting in. but i want to ask you a question about this strategic partnership, because from my perspective and from some others up in the senate, the nature of the strategic framework agreement that took place with respect to iraq should have been subject to much more vigorous participation by the united states congress. when you're defining a security

relationship with another country in which there has been this type of military involvement, it just seems to me that there should be some sort of congressional approval of the parameters that are eventually agreed upon. do you see this strategic partnership, this agreement, as it is moving forward, as an egs presentation of executive power, or do you see this as something that is many in the lines of traditional role of congress? >> senator webb, let me say explic explicitly, while i welcome the opportunity to come back and testify for confirmation, any contribution i can make to help explain what we're doing in afghanistan -- >> i university of north carolina -- understand. >> -- far outweighs anything to do with confirmation.

with respect to the strategic partnership, this will be a critical milestone, but it won't be the last milestone. i expect that there is a follow-on agreement that will address a number of issues, for example, including basing and so forth that my guess would be would give more to the types of issues that you are concerned about and that you're raising. so at this point, let me say that we will commit to consult with congress as we move forward on the strategic partnership and that we will be prepared to explain how it relates to future steps and understand that you will have a view about what role congress should have, the senate should have, in each of those steps. >> well, let me express my concern, because if you will recall what happened in the situation with our relationship with iraq, there were two agreementings. one was the strategic framework agreement, which really defined the nature of a longer-term

relationship, and then the other was the sopa, which is more nutsy boltsy, as you know, everywhere we have american troops we have some kind of a sofa. but neither of them were brought for the formal consideration of the congress. and we actually with the previous administration had to go to a room, as if this document were classified, and it was not, and sign in order to retrieve it in order to read it. so it was pretty much kept out of the public eye and away from formal congressional consideration. and i attempted to bring it to a vote, quite frankly. i lost that attempt. but i believe when you're defining this type of far-reach ing relationship between two countries that it should not be simply a matter of the executive

branch. and this conversation will be continued, but i wanted to raise it today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator webb. senator wicker. >> thank you. general allen, on january 31st of this year lance corporal eddie dykhuis, a marine from greenville, mississippi, was shot in the head by an afghan army liaison nco embedded with lance corporal dykhuis' unit in helmand province. yesterday my staff and i received a briefing on the details of this case from the marine corps and the nail criminal investigative service, ncis. the ongoing marine corps and ncis investigation of this case has revealed that the afghan soldier responsible for the shooting has a questionable personal history previously unknown to the u.s. military. i was informed by the marine corps that this afghan soldier would never have been allowed to embed with our forces had we known of his history. as such, i believe robust recruit screening by the afghan

security forces could have helped avoid the tragic death of this brave young man. general, will your team at isaf headquarters work with the marine corps and ncis to provide me with a detailed written report on the circumstances surrounding lance corporal dykhuis' murder? >> yes, sir, we will. >> and what is your current assessment of the insider threat facing troops in afghanistan from rogue elements and individuals in the afghan security forces? i understand this is -- this happens so frequently that it is known by the term "green on blue" attacks. in other words, afghan on nato or isaf force attacks. how many isaf and american personnel have died as a result of green on blue attacks? and how many such attacks are still currently under investigation? >> senator, i'll have to get you the final number on the numbers

under investigation. but we've had 52 americans who have been killed and another 60 or so, 68 who have been wounded since 2007 when we first started to track these events. we have taken significant steps to work closely with the afghans. and i'll talk about what the afghan side is doing and then i'll talk about what we're doing on our side. on the afghan side, we're trying to accelerate the counterintelligence capabilities of the afghan national army to ensure that they have the ability down to the battalion level to detect an insider threat that may develop. they have improved the vetting process of individuals who are coming into the afghan national army and police with an eight-step vetting process which includes requirement to have valid i.d. card, letters of

endorsement or recommendation from village elders and other aspects, criminal background check and so on. there is an unprecedented level of cooperation between the national director of security, their intelligence directorate and the a.n.a. and the anp to embed counterintelligence from the nds in basic training, in the basic training schools, the follow-on schools, and ultimately to have counterintelligence operatives working closely with the a.n.a. and ann their ranks as well. in general -- >> how long has this new eight-step process been in place? >> just months, sir. >> and can you -- it strikes me that that is a very high number of green on blue attacks. >> this is since 2007, sir.

we've had six that have -- six americans who have been killed this calendar year. >> so do you think they've tapered off? >> i don't think so at this point. i think that the measures that are being taken now once they are in place, the measures that the isaf and u.s. forces that are undertaking, those in combination, i believe, will begin the process of eliminating or reducing to the maximum extent possible the insider threat, as it is called. it's called green on blue for the purposes of reporting. but those measures have really only gone into effect in this calendar year, and so we're going to work very hard both within isaf and in partnership with the afghans to reduce this as much as possible. it's important also to note that the afghans have suffered nearly as many casualties as we have from the same kind of threat. so it's in everyone's interest

that we have a combined effort to be able to sense and to eliminate -- >> you're speaking -- let me make that -- make it clear. you're speaking of green on green. >> yes. correct. >> an afghan soldier killing another afghan soldier. >> that is correct, sir. and so it's in all our interest to assess the presence of extremists in the ranks and be able to deal with them when we do. there are, and we can provide this to you -- be very happy, in fact, i'll take it as a due out -- to provide you accounts of successful investigations that have occurred in the last several month where is we have, in fact, intercepted, arrested, detained individuals whose intent it was to harm either afghans or isaf forces. >> well, it would be good to have the success stories. i'm afraid i'm asking you for a

pretty detailed answer on the record, though, as far as the incidents since 2007 as far as when they occurred, because i'd like to review for myself if it's getting better or if it's getting worse. let me just ask you this. i understand that lance corporal dykhuis' killer is being held in custody by afghan security forces. what steps will you take so to ensure that the afghans do not either intentionally or unintentionally release this individual? and will your team at isaf headquarters keep me updated in writing on the latest developments on the afghan soldier's case as it makes its way through the afghan legal system? >> we will certainly do that, senator. i have been in contact with the chief of the investigation, and we have spoken on this individual, this individual personally, and he has assured

me that justice will be done. and they have him in the afghan army detention facility in turkey, and they will prosecute him according to afghan law. and i have reason to believe that he'll be held accountable. but in any case, we'll be watching that case and keep you apprised, sir. >> okay. i have a follow-up question. my time is up. it deals with some more particulars on the screening process and the way we're involved in helping to screen the afghan security forces. i'll submit that in writing. >> we'll take it for the record. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator wicker. senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, gentlemen. general allen, good to see you again. >> good to see you, sir. >> as always, thank you for your service and your dedication to this crucial mission. when senator jack reid and i were in afghanistan last fall in october, we talked at length about plans for this year's campaign and about particularly

the training plan for the afghan national security forces. i want to make sure you have the resources to recruit, train, and equip a viable security force. dr. miller, good to see you, as well. i want to make sure also that the administration and the dod are in the process of developing models and plans for after 2014, after the nato combat troops have left afghanistan. i have to tell you that insufficient contingency planning for what might half after the taliban were routed in 2001 and after saddam hussein's regime fell in 2003 that led to these long, irregular wars over the last decade, and i want to be absolutely certain we're not going to make that same mistake by failing to plan and prepare for a post-nato afghanistan. so in that spirit, i know we've been justifiably focused on the

counterinsurgency mission, training the nasf, rooting out corruption in the afghan government and working through a lot of other issues with an eye on the 2014 step-back. i'd like to talk about what happens after 2014, what capabilities will the afghan army have, what missions will they be able to perform? in other words, do you envision the afghan national security forces as a defensive force or one that's capable of going after the taliban and actually disrupting their operations? >> sir, let me start with that. i -- the ansf that will ultimately be fielded, the 3525,000-pernfors at the end of '13 will continue in force for some period of time after 2014. again, as we discussed earlier, it will be based on quality metr metrics, the a