enemy situation, the operational environment, and so on. but we would expect to see that the 352,000 force continue for at least a full year after the 2014 force. the nature of the force we envisage now will be primarily conducting countersecurity forces, what we're calling operationally significant insurgent capabilities. so wherever we may find that there is still an insurgent threat, the capacity of that force will be focused on continuing to deal with it. as suggestions this morning have implied, one of the challenges been insurgent threats across the boarder in the safe haven. the nature of the force as it is currently envisaged to be disposed around the country, based on the operational environment, may require that more of that force ultimately be

disposed to be deployed in the eastern and southern portions of the country than had been originally imagined. but i think that's fine. as we're talking this -- talking through this now with afghan leadership, and of course it will ultimately be their decision, but we're actually having conversations out to the end of '14 now on our bilateral campaign plan and beginning to have discussions about the period from 1 january '15 to the other end of '17, the expectation would be that we would dispose the forces in afghanistan in direct proportion and in direct response to the operational environment and the insurgent threat. the expected force will ultimately be a force that has sufficient policing capacity to provide protection to the population and an army and an air force that have the capacity to move sufficiently quickly to the point of requirement, either back up the police as necessary

or to conduct additional counterinsurgency operations. so we're looking for a force that has those balanced capabilities, sir. >> dr. miller, would you like to add anything to that overview? >> senator udall, general allen has april covered it. i would say that we understand what the composition is to be of the 352,000 with 195,000 a.n.a. and 157,000 afghan national police. the composition and the overall number when and as those numbers are reduced based on conditions is not yet determined. and that is -- as we think about the post 2014 planning, we will need -- we need and we are thinking about a range of different contingencies and a range of different situations and understand that while one has a plan, at the end of the day, that plan will need to be adjusted over time. >> sir, may i just come back very briefly? >> please. >> i apologize.

we will still see the force disposed almost certainly along the original plan. but elements of that force, as, again, based on the enemy situation, would be deployed in an expeditionary manner for periods of time and then go back to the basic. so the forces that would otherwise be deployed to the north will still be garrisoned in the north, but elements of it we would imagine, again, to be determined with detailed planning, would deploy to those areas where those specific skills or additional combat power would be needed. but we would envision that those would be temporary deployments. we'd still see the army based as we have envisaged it -- i'm sorry -- across the country. but the force would mass as necessary to deal with those operationally relevant insurgent hotspots. >> so if we don't see a broad reconciliation process, peace talks, taliban included in the afghan national government, these forces would be prepared to take the fight in a

counterinsurgency construct to the taliban, to the hakani network and others who would have has a goal to undercut stability and security of afghanistan? >> that's correct. and they are demonstrating those capabilities already. >> on those capabilities, who's responsible for determining what those capabilities for the afghan national security forces should be and then for measuring that progress toward meeting those requirements? is that you, general? is it moi? minister of interior? who all are involved? >> well, clearly, they are measuring them, as well, and we prepare those measurements. within the isaf forces, it is both an assessment that is done by the nato training mission afghanistan but also an assessment done by the operational commanders. >> talk a little bit more about the afghan local police. you shared with us last fall that your plans and hopes there and the alp seemed to offer an

opportunity as well. >> it is i think a substantial contribution to the security of afghanistan. the alp does a number of things for the campaign. the fist is that it provides the opportunity for afghans to defend themselves. they're not malicious. they're not individuals that are hired apart from a local population then inserted into that population. our special operate or thes will go to a village or to a town. they'll spend some time living with that population. they'll ultimately, in conversation with the leadership of that population, they'll determine that they seek to be basically mobilized as a community to defend themselves. when they make that decision, and it's their decision, when they make that decision, then we begin to recruit the afghan local police. the individuals of any particular garrison are vetted by the local elders, they're vetted, of course, through a police record. they are -- they are technically

and officially associated with the ministry of interior through the local district chief of police. they're trained by our special operators, green berets, s.e.a.l.s or marines, who live amongst them and continue to mentor their capabilities. what has happened with the alp is it has created opportunities for large amounts of the afghan population to reject the taliban. and there is -- there have been some cuts we have gotten where taliban commanders have said if you can kill an alp commander, so an afghan local policeman who's leading his own tribesmen in that particular village, if you can kill an alp commander it's worth ten coalition soldiers. the taliban are very threatened by the alp because the significant terrain, the key terrain in a counterinsurgency, is the human terrain. and the afghan local police deny the human terrain to the taliban. we're only about halfway through in the fielding of the force.

we're at about 12,000 now. the force will grow to an envisioned strength of 30,000. and once we reach that point, then we'll need to make some hard decisions about whether we retain that force, continue it in its existence, or even expand that force. we would do that obviously with the afghans in the lead on that decisionmaki decisionmaking. >> all right. time has expired, but two final comments. power of this concept i think is very significant. it works within the tribal structure in afghanistan. it's not compared in a sense to the sunni awakening in iraq, but there are elements of this that engage the local population and fit, again, a tribal world view. so count me in as somebody who wants to support this going forward. >> thank you, sir. >> secondly, again, i just want to underline the need for post-2014 contingency planning to we don't see ourself involved in a long irregular war in the next decade. we'll have a continued presence

in afghanistan. there's much at stake. we don't want to be attacked again. but i think we can learn a lot from what's occur over the last ten years in afghanistan and in iraq so we set the right kind of stage as we hand off the country to the afghans. thanks again for your service, both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator udall. senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general and dr. miller, thank you. general, and i was honored to serve in afghanistan this summer and speak with you and discuss the challenges, and i appreciate all of your service and sacrifice and those of our men and women that are serving. first of all, it was my greatest honor that i've had to do that, especially meeting with you and all of the commanders under your command. a couple of things i noted from that trip was the fact that we were contracting with the enemy. by that trip, the senator and i weather the blessing of the chairman and others that were able to address that in our recent defense authorization bill. so how is that?

is that helping? >> absolutely. the ability to terminate a contract on the spot for misconduct within that contract is very helpful, sir. >> great. and i was also able to at a time learn about some of the bah issues affecting our guardsmen and was able to address that, as well, through the chairman's help and support in getting an amendment up to do that. so just those two issues alone made the trip worthwhile. the other thing i noted during that time period was the amazing amount of audits that you and your commander were subjected to. is that better than it was or what? >> i have to -- importantly, i have to start by saying we have benefited from these audits. >> i understand that. >> but we've gotten important help within the department of defense and from other audit agencies in consolidating -- >> good. >> -- like or identical requirement so that we can get one audit that can provide universal return. and so that has been very

helpful. >> has that been done? because i know that's something that we brought up -- i brought up to the chairman and with his leadership and the ranking members we were able to kind of put that message out as well. they're not avoiding the audits, but to take the men and women serving and put them in the office for audits is kind of counterproductive, especially with the drawdown. is that working better? >> we think it is, sir. thank you. >> one other thing, when we have to get the siren off for the night raids, i'm deeply concerned probably as senator graham is about the rule of law issues. who's signing off on these? are these afghan judges? can you just go through the process of how that would work? >> senator, we're really just starting these negotiations, and they're very sensitive. >> so let me just say, then -- >> happy to give it to you as an addendum. >> absolutely. let me say, though, i am concerned about the rule of law

issues as senator graham is as i remember going and observing not only at the detainment facility and participating in a review of releasease but deeply concerned about that. so i know you'll take that into consideration. and the green on bluish shoes, how are those soldiers that have killed our soldiers -- how are they actually treated? are they arrested? are they in jail? where are they? what's the status of those folks? >> many of them were killed on the spot. the others that were apprehend are in the hands of the afghan military. as i said, the one who killed lance corporal dykhuis is in the military detention facility. i was by general carrinii, who i believe you've met, assured that justice will be done in that regard. i'm confident that he will be true to his word, sir. >> and no doubt about that. i know with senator udall, i was

able to go and actually observe and meet the leadership on the afghan local police program. and i, too, am a huge supporter. i'm also deeply concerned that by getting that program up to 30,000, yet we're doing a dramatic drawdown, how does that all work out? getting that program up and running is without a doubt the clearest deterrent for the taliban to re-establish ties in that region and potentially re-establish camps and potentially export terrorism around the region and eventually potentially, you know, moving on other parts of that -- other countries within that region. how do you think that's going to shake out? >> i think it's going to continue to be an important mechanism for holding the ground in afghanistan. >> quite a bit less cost and less manpower. >> much less cost. and the special operators that we have dedicated to that we're

in the process, working very closely with our special operations command led by our great green beret, general chris haas, who i think you've met. >> yes. >> and i hold in very high esteem. we are working now the process, just as we're transitioning other aspects of the amsf, transitioning the special operators in those units, as well, to afghan special operators. and that's a natural course of events that should occur. that now frees up our green berets, s.e.a.l.s and marines to go elsewhere. and if you watch the unfolding of the campaign plan, what happens ahead of the movement of our conventional forces is you will see vso and alp sites appearing ahead of us. >> oh, i know. >> holding the terrain and denying it to the enemy so when our conventional forces have to move on the ground, casualties are much less, population is far more receptive to our presence and we can accomplish the goals more directly.

>> the thing i found fascinating is is just the simple thing of putting in a road that has connected these villages to one another that have not been connected for centuries or ever. >> exactly. >> now when the taliban is trying to move on a village, we have other villages moving in to help, which has never been heard of. and you have the alps out there and you see they are communicating, i forget if it was by bell or by light, depending on the situation, and letting them know that there's trouble. are you finding that kind of a fascinating thing that's happening that's never happened i think in the history of afghanistan politics and tribal negotiations and involvement with each other? >> we're seeing cooperation that i think is really helpful. and we're also seeing the resilience of the alp that we hadn't anticipated. they're taking casualties, and they're staying on the check points. they're taking casualties, and they're still going out on patrol. >> i remember being on that post where they were having battles

and they fought many battles there and finally the taliban moved on. >> exactly right. >> i would encourage you, sir, to keep us in the loop on that program, and if you hear it's being jeopardized or shortchanged, you need to let the chairman and ranking members know and all of us who are huge supporters of that program to make sure we can give you the tools and resources you need to complete the mission. thank you very much, sir. >> thank you, senator brown. >> thank you, senator brown. senator begich? >> thank you, senator. thank you both for being here. thank you for being patient, as many members obviously have a lot of questions for you. general, i want to point out, and i don't do this that often, but i want to point out the colonel did an incredible job for us when we went to afghanistan. we had a lot of modifications in our schedule. let me just say that. and adjustments were made rapidly, which gave me even more security that what's going on there in the sense of our troops are doing a great job. so i just wanted to point that

out. colonel didn't ask me to do this, and he'll say why did i do it, but because you did a great job. you made our trip easier and in a compressed time. >> senator, thank you. i'll extend him 18 months so he can support your next visit. >> i like it. thank you very much, colonel. let me also say that -- and i know you know this, and that is one-tenth of the force over there comes from alaska right now in the sense of their stationed capacity. about 9,000 troops. and i had a great opportunity to see the 125. i didn't have a chance to see the 425 but it was an incredible team, and all the testimony that you've given is similar to what i heard and saw in the sense of the changes that occur and have been occurring since i was there in may of '09. my first trip there. there's a lot of changes with the security forces, which is encouraging and i think a critical piece. if i remember some of the conversations we had there on the ground, that as they become

more adapted to their abilities and capacity, that they're able to maintain and hold these areas and take the lead, which i think is an impressive piece of the equation here, where in '09, to be frank with you, in may of '09, i was not very secure in that view. today i do see that. so i want to say thanks to the teams. and know it's not just the u.s. troops but a big chunk of it is, but we have great allies helping train our folks. and next week i'll be over in croatia, and i know croatia, speaking about the economic summit, they've been an incredible partner, as many others have, and i'll echo that to them and their help. >> thank you, sir p. >> that to me is important. let me ask you, and i also saw i say that in a way that's not like advanced technology in regards to the ieds that are being rproduced and that we're

having to manage and deal with. but some of those chemicals and materials coming from pakistan, we know that, you know that, we all know that. tell me kind of what you think we need to be doing or where we are in this regard. i know you talked about pakistan in our earlier discussion. both of you did. this to me is one of my biggest concerns about -- and i'll be very frank with you -- the lack of focus in my view by pakistan and helping us assist in this effort and we know and can also pinpoint where it's coming from but are not getting the full cooperation. help me understand, because this is one big question i get from alaskans and the frustration they have as we see a thousand of our troops there, and they're very frustrated with the lack of participation. i know some will correct me by the state department. i'm sure i'll get a call

momentarily. but the fact is i didn't see as much as they could be doing. who wants to take that? >> senator, let me first say that i had the opportunity when i was in country a couple of weeks ago to meet with the arctic wolves, who are doing a terrific job. >> thank you. >> and both as they operate thepgss and in partnering with coalition afghan and afghan forces. i think two elements to the challenge you described, one is that we have, just as you indicate, we've gotten better at the counter-ied fight within afghanistan. we've gotten substantially better over time. unfortunately, because it's not just persisted but because the enemy has continued to adapt and our joint ied organization has done good work and obviously we've done -- our team in country has continued to focus on that challenge. i can say that at multiple

levels, multiple times we have raised the challenge of this type sanctuary for the development and for the movement of ieds from pakistan into afghanistan. pakistan has a very significant interest in stability in afghanistan. they also have a significant interest in this problem, because as i noted, they are actually suffering significant casualties within pakistan. we will continue to work with them. we will continue to do everything possible to address this and to reduce the threat that these ieds pose to u.s. coalition and afghan forces. >> i appreciate the comment. i recognize the delicacy how to deal with this, but i also look at it from another perspective. for example, on the capacity for afghanistan, and this is around some of the stuff we're doing around governance and its

economic capacity to survive. you know, here we know afghanistan used to be an incredible producer of incredible product, vegetable, fruits, so forth. india is a market that's just -- you know, ready to take it, but pakistan is a problem here. to move those products at an aggressive rate because of t issues with india. so i know it's a complicated process, but if we of want to make that region more secure, we have to figure these pieces out, and pakistan seems to be a critical piece from the national security perspective of afghanistan, but also from the economic opportunities that are being denied to them. i mean, do you have, again, either one want to comment on that? >> senator, i agree with what you've said and the importance of developing both internal and external markets for afghanistan as they begin to grow more

capacity, and if i could say, i want to thank you and the committee for support of the defense department contribution in this, the task force on business operations. part of what it does is looking for long-term significant move on the afghan economy that from mineral extraction, for example, but a key part of it is also to look at this sort of bottom-up, grass roots industry and help develop that in particular areas where we've cleared and help and now are helping them beld build that capacity. i noted i was in afghanistan a couple weeks ago, in india less than a month ago and had an opportunity to speak also with a number of senior officials. they, as you know, have a long-standing interest in afghanistan, and they are also interested in -- and are committed to the economic

relationship. let me conclude by saying that regional con sttext is critical important. over time environment vital and we have work to do and will continue to work on it. >> very good. general, i know you spoke earlier about where we are and the status of the withdrawal and what we happen over time and so forth. and you had some areas of still concern that, as you monitor this and watch this, i know senator nelson and i was a supporter of it. we have a benchmark list within the last authorization bill, and obviously, i would love if you would share not only with me i'm sure other members may want to see it, where we are on the benchmarks and how those benchmarks in this one, because my time is now out, but how those benchmarks could influence the timetable currently in

place, but also can a positive movement on those benchmarks have any movement in accelerating any drawdown that may occur? so could you -- you or whoever would be the appropriate person look at those benchmarks we have and then see how they, their metric, benchmarks, how they compare to where we're at in our 2014 target with combat troops out, but, then is there benchmarks that could accelerate that may give you an opportunity to accelerate the combat troop withdrawal? could you do that for the record and present that to us at some point? >> we have your question, sir, and would you glad to do that. >> i can't say enough about the work and the troops on the ground there. they're incredible, motivated, they're excited. everyone from the wounded warrior team we saw to the folks doing the dock work to the folks sitting in the tower moving planes, to the troops on the ground. it was impressive and of course

i was very proud to say that one-tenth of the force over there comes from the bases of alaska. i just want to thank you all for the work you're doing every day. >> thank you for your support as well, sir. >> thank. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you dr. miller and general allen for being before the committee today and in particular general allen, i want to thank you for your powerful testimony repudiating some of the errant and outrageous rhetoric that sometimes comes from president karzai about our troops, and we share your sentiments about their integrity, bravery and sacrifice. so thank you for your testimony in that regard. let me share my opinion that is the same at senator chand liss and others about these five detainees. these are the worst of the worst. these five have the blood of americans and our allies on their hands, and i want to

commend secretary panetta for taking his certification responsibility so seriously, because i just don't see how you could possibly certify that these five guys wouldn't return to the battlefield, given our history of recidivism from guantanamo. i just wanted to express that and commend the second for what i understand to be his position right now on those five detainees. general allen, we had recently before the committee senator mccain, who spoke with general mattis about the report al qaeda is making a comeback in iraq, and general mattis said al qaeda come back is particularly noteworthy in western iraq and even al qaeda's threat is extending into baghdad. general, you've served in iraq with distinction. you understand not only with your current responsibilities in afghanistan, but the importance of what we've done in iraq, and

obviously, the role that iran can play in iraq, not only in iraq but currentlyta can you help me -- what was the perception of us not leaving a follow-on force in iraq and afghanistan given your need to, of course, make sure that we execute a strategic partnership, and, second, whatke from that ad in making sure that we have that follow-on ag >> back in november of last year president karzai, i think, wisely convened something the lawyer jerga, which in this case was over 2,000 afghan notables from all walks of life came together for several days

to answer in essence two questions. should there be a strategic partnership with the united states? and should afghanistan pursue liba the first of the two being the preeminent outcome of the jerga that the voice of the people as jerg s.a.t. highe jerga is the highest expressed. there was no question. as the committees reported out one after the other, that it was the desire of that representative body of the afghan people that they desired a long-term relationship with the united states. the individual contours of which remain to be negotiated, but they desired a long-term relationship with the united states. i don't believe that there was of in iraq a similar expression or a similar grouping of the iraqis to express themselves

about that long-term u.s. presence, and thankfully, because of the lawyer jerga and the articles ultimately that accompanied its expression we have a feel for what that relationship should be. i think that the voice of the people as expressed in jerga was quite a blow to the taliban, and when it support add strategic partnership which will ultimately come into affect i think within weeks another blow to the taliban, that will set up the conference, the summit of the heads of state of the 50 nations of isef in chicago in may and when they register support for afghanistan not just in 2014 but in the years that follow that will be another blow to the taliban and a senate that the international community desires peace and stability in afghanistan which is not just good for the afghan people and not? su