five is incredible and we've absolutely had an opportunity to defend europe. we have already, and the pentagon is working this out as we speak, taken elements to rotate through europe to ensure the critical partnership function that they performed while there. so where as there may have been some initial concern that the headline of withdrawing troops in europe, we think that by explaining what is behind the thing which, by the way, should not be reduced to the numbers of brigade combat teams in europe. over the three years of the obama administration we have done a number of other things to m modernize our commitment, american presence including

troops, people, in romania and poland. the radar in turkey. we are rotating cruisers. there's a whole web of presence in europe. we move forward in poland. we've done some other things with special forces in the uk and elsewhere. we've tried to remind them that america's commitment to europe and presence in europe should not be reduced. >> i have one other question to ask. can you give me a quick take on president-ele president-elect's promise to withdraw troops and the impact of that on the entire collective effort? >> absolutely. the lisbon commitment, the lisbon times, when things were most successful in long it.

the core principle has been in together. out together. and at lis bop the alliance is agreed the life back troops will remain. being successful end of 2014 after which they would be gone. candidate and the french troops should be out sooner than that, by the end of 2012. this is obviously something we will look forward to discussing with the president once he is sworn in. i leave for paris this afternoon to carry on with this conversation, which has already gun. begun. the french assure us they are committed to our success in afghanistan and i'm sure we'll find a way forward that ensures that common success. all i can speak to our own view which is this principle in together, out together, remains critical. you should not lose sight of the

fact which is quite an accomplishment for president and his leadership that every member stuck to that and there haven't been the withdrawals the political pressure. every member is onboard for maintaining that commitment through 2014. >> those will be discussions. you have the toughest job of all having to travel to london and brussels and paris and so forth. you don't have to comment. >> i made clear to secretary clinton that i am ready to spend as much time in paris in the coming weeks. >> fair enough. fair enough. final question just quickly, almost a year ago now secretary gates made a very strong statement to the alliance in which he lamented, quote, that many of the allies were unwilling to make the necessary

changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. where does the administration stand with respect to that statement today and what can we help? >> we continue to urge our european partners to uphold including the common pledge of 2% spending on defense. it is the reality that long-term -- the trend of european defense spending is poor and in the long run if it's not sustained, the alliance won't be able to do what we're supposed to be done including most recently in libya where not withstanding the real base. they flew up more than 85% of the strike missions. in afghanistan they've sustained nearly 40% troops as part of

isap. these and other cases we want more and need more but we shouldn't overlook the fact they're making important contributions. we urge them to make the arrangements necessary just as it is true today. the last week we under the constraints. that is why one of the deliverables from chicago that jim and i have emphasized is this question of capabilities and smart defense. even at stoned levels we have to do it better, more evidently. we had some projects. >> i appreciate it. there are obviously some follow-ups to that. secretary townsend, we'll leave the record open for a week on this.

i will now recognize senator corker and hand the gavel over to shaheen. >> we've been this issue of the 2% gdp is not being honored. secretary albright was in not two years ago talking about the same thing, secretary yates has talked about the same things. did so in europe. we talked with the secretary-general about this same issue and it continues to be while we're urging. this trend has been continuing for a long time. we understand europe is under stress right now but what set of ingredients do you think exist or what is it that we're doing? we spent last year 5% of gdp. i know it's dropping to the high 4s in this next year and

certainly i think we should make sure we invest appropriately. as we continue doing what we are doing, they more be a more are becoming the consumer and it doesn't seem to be anything that's really changing that dynami dynamic. many of the countries have had more injuries than us. from the standpoint of year in, year out, investment, modernization and the defense forces is just not happening. and we've been talking the same line since i've been here. i've been here five years and nothing has changed. there are only three countries, us, the u.s. and that is investing 2%. some say grease's investment is not being done wisely.

i wonder if there's anything that would really change that dynamic and calls this a true performances. >> again, i'll start and jim may want to jump in on this. first of all, senator, we agree with that assessment and why we've been clear about how critical this is. i recall libya as an example of doing more than urging where in the case of libya facing a grave humanitarian crisis, coming to us and telling us how important it was for us to act. arab league calling fo an intervention as well. we said we agree. action needs to be taken.

we look the lead, got the resolution and said we're prepared to do what only we can do. >> i appreciate and honor that, too. to build an appropriate defense mechanism as a group of countries it takes year in, year out, year in, year in investment. you sequesteration. the pentagon is beginning to be concerned because their horizon is not just in a month but over a long period of time. it is over a long period of time, a downward trajectory. and so i honor what happened in libya but i'm still not seeing anything whatsoever that's changing the trend to move it back up to, by the way, what is a commitment. this is not like a goal, a 2% n investment of gdp is a commitment by the nato allies. it's not being honored.

what i'm concerned about is the long run trajectory and that's what i'm not seeing. what type of ingredient will changes that especially with the economic times we're dealing with. >> once again, i agree with that sentiment. the longer term point, in that case we will provide our unique capabilities but expect you to be able to play a major role yourselves. by insisting that we are now able to say there's the example. you won't be able to do this in the future and you can't expect the u.s. to do it. that's what they're hearing from us and they are trying to

finally -- there's a lot of inefficiencies in alliance when it comes to defense spending. people aren't doing it smartly enough and just to take one example. the agreement to build this allied ground surveillance system where 13 of them will come together and buy five drones built by an american company, by the way, to share this through the entire alliance is what they need to invest in. this is the thing they can do with less money to actually provide capability for everybody. we are trying to do that as well. >> thank you. i'm glad we're on the same page. let me ask another question. what are we -- this commitment to afghanistan, the last i checked and i'm dated on this, but to provide enough resources just for them to maintain the security forces that we have trained up with them is $9

billion a year. i think the budget authority the last time i checked in afghanistan and, again, i'm a little dated, but it was around a billion, $2 billion. that is the entire security tab and what kind of commitment because this is something coming up right now. this is not a trajectory. what is the exact gap and when do we expect from our nato allies to have those real prejs coming forth to fill the gap? >> i will have to get you the exact numbers on where we are now. >> in the order of magnitude. >> what we are focused on as far as for chicago, obviously this number needs to go down of us need to or want to. you are right on where we are and have been for the next

couple of years. none of us want to spend that. we focus on how to leave something believable in the wake. we know we're going to have to help and the plan we're looking at for chicago would involve the international community putting in aroundeded 4 billion a year to maintain the afghan national security force. for up to a decade. now the afghans themselves have pledged 950 million and that amount should rise year by year after that. and secretary gates challenged the rest of isaf to come up with a billion euros. and we've been working very hard at the highest levels of our government to get the right of the international community to

deliver on that pledge so that if we get to that point of the 4.1 billion, the other members of isaf would bring our numbers down considerably and by a factor of 5, 6 or more. >> you may get those commitments in chicago, is that what you're saying, or will that take a longer period of time? >> we are looking for solid equipment. >> thank you for your work. madam chairman, thank you. >> juror cardin. >> thank you. i want to follow up on a point from yesterday. and that is the chicago summit will not be an enlargement summit. and i got the

secretary-general's view on how we deal with nations we hope one day will be part of nato. my concern is it's been that ability or desire to join either the european union or nato that has been a motivating factor to accelerate democratic reforms in many countries of europe. we've seen that work successfully. i think there must be some disappointment that the summit will not be an enlargement summit. montenegro and macedonia were very close on their plans. we have the issues with bosnia where they've made significant progress and not quite met the target dates but they are moving possible in a way. georgia has made substantial progress. they may not have reached the plateau for formal acceptance,

but i think the sill nal being sent is we'll have the ex panks of nato. on a parallel path the eu has been slow on expansion because of the economic problems of europe. so i guess i would like to get the administration's view as to how we continue to keep the momentum moving towards democratic reform and ultimate membership in nato and countries that we have been very actively enga engaged. four plus others. >> i agree that historically enlargement has been good for europe, stability, and has been the right policy. administrations of different stripes have been supportive of

it. we agree with that. i think we have been staying and this phase you heard, we have been saying, okay, it's not an enlargement summit but it should be backing away. there is not a country ready to be included in the alliance with the consensus behind it. we want to be clear this doesn't mean we're not focused on enlargement or as supportive as ever of the open door policy. one of the ways we're going to signal that is secretary clinton will participate in a meeting of nato foreign ministers with the four countries to acknowledge them, note that the door remains open, talk to them about the process going forward and we hope and expect the communique will signal our strong support for enlargement in general and the prostheses of these four in

particular. every case needs to be treated separately and we should have is high standards and important criteria for joining the alliance and we continue to work in different ways with each of the four countries. i'll be glad to talk about more detail in each. our bottom line point is no one should see the summit. we remain committed to the open door. >> i said that and agree with you. which are truly unique and i understand the hurdles even of the four countries still have remaining. i really do. it's a very important signal. the types of reforms carried out not just in these countries or others who wants to become a pl plan. they are just not necessarily local. they have commitments to their change for authority.

the type of democratic -- reforms we see, the types of controls for security. those types of issues aren't always the most popular domestically in those kcountrie but they're able to do it because they see a path towards integration and if that path looks like it's going to be a long haul seen in the recent elections, they don't always go for the responsible route. i think it's message the message came from the united states. president clinton will be talking to the four. it's very clear we do see the path that will lead to that. there are reforms that need to be pursued and although we are not ready at this meeting, seek

membership in europe and nato. >> we agree with that for the very reasons you state and it is our goal and commitment to make sure that this summit sends a positive signal in that direction. i'll be honest, not every member is enthusiastic about enlargement process and sometimes it takes some persuading to make sure that positive signal gets sent but this administration's view, we appreciate the committee for that goal. >> and we've seen that at prior submits. there's concern about other countries in europe and their view. we're well aware and that's why it's important for u.s. leadership to be focused and clear in chicago. >> thank you. madam chair? >> senator risch? >> thank you for coming, gentlemen. we met -- this committee met

with the secretary-general yesterday and we had a spirited discussion. i'd like to associate myself with his remarks. we all have the same concerns he does and want to make sure the communication is clear, wanting to join is one thing. a strong commitment is another issue that certainly needs to be underscored. let me say that, senator gore done, you quickly identified those interested in. i want to talk about one of those briefly and that is the georgia situation. it is a concern to a lot of us and in your remarks you talked about the stressing that you did to the russians about meeting their commitments as far as georgia is concerned, and you touched on it kind of lightly and i don't mean that

derogatorily. it's almost as if the international community understands the commitments that the russians have made regarding georgia but no one really he can inspects them to meet those commitments. and as i read between the lines with what you were saying it was almost a reiteration of that. give me your thoughts on whether russia will meet its commitments. they made very strong commitments -- not strong xhipts but blue commitments as to what they were going to do to the french and the one that i'm most interested in is the obligation to vacate occupied tefrts. it's just not right. the russians said that they would meet the commitment to va tags. they haven't done that. no one expects them to do that. what are your thoughts on that regard? >> thank you, senator. i won't pretend it is easy to find a way to get russia to make

those commitments. we agree with your assessment that russia is currently in violation of the ceasefire agreements that were reached in 2007 and 2008. they had six minutes. one of them was for russian troops to go back to where they were prior to the start of the conflict and those troops are not apparently back to where -- prior to the start of the cop flikt. we believe russia is in violation of those xhimts and we've been clear and secretary clinton has referred to russia's occupation of georgia, not meant to be provocative but to describe what we believe to be the case which is russia having military forces within the territorial boundaries of an internationally recognized country. i think there may be three other countries in the world that have

done so and every single other member of the international community has refused to do so. in that sense we believed we would have denied russia any legitimatization. we've maintained, not rhetorical rhetorically, support, genuine support for the country of georgia. and most recently manifested in the visit that president sha shaquille o'neal paid to president obama where we strengthened the relationship and the defense relationship. i will express thanks. one of the major contributors per capita. we're working to change that as

well. >> i have to tell you it's disheartening to watch this work. a commitment has been made like this. it's handled cavalierly. nobody does anything about it. mr. townsend, i want to follow up on comments that senator c k corker made. if you feel comfortable in answering these, fine. if not, we can go back to dr. barken. when you put up a pencil to this, it just doesn't work. mr. -- secretary gordon said, in fact i think he listening, is the number one priority was to chart a clear path forward for security forces in afghanistan for sustainability. i understand you want the money

that you want from the europeans and from others. when you look at what it costs to maintain and you compare it to the gdp of the country, even if you include the drug profits that they make, it just don't work. what are your thoughts? how do you get there? how do you get some confidence when the numbers just don't work? >> thank you, senator. the pencil work you described as, i'm sure, being done on the hill, being done by the administration. my department as well as the department of sense were working those numbers as well, at nato, too, without allies, with the afghan government. there's a lot of pencils trying to chop forward. if you're nato and looking what

the nato presence could be. the afghan side. what we have to figure first is what do we think we're going to need to do the job? what needs to be -- what needs to be some of the factors when you look at it. one the major factors is the size, part of what drives the number, will be conditions on the ground, the type of job faced after 2014, what will the taliban look like. these are all right know factors. so many depends on how much we're able to degrade the taliban. that presence less of a threat to afghanistan and the asf. that impacts the size. we know there's an important election coming up. in terms of security and making

sure that election goes off without a security threat. so the pencils are moving and we're still a little at work. in chicago nato is going to produce its strategic plan with afghanistan trying to deal with these numbers as you know we just kind, lass, the u.s. strategic partnership with the afghans. we're right now putting down on wayer. that will impact what the asfs will look like. that will have the cost. we know, too, we have to make sure that the afghans have what they -- what we think they're going to need to do the job. >> i aresht that. i think everybody has a long ways to go before the cam for

the level. we're very nervous about this and having a difficult time without the money of money and the circumstances of this country. the european countries clearly the afghans. my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator risch. i want to get into the specifics of the upcoming summit. before i do that, i want to ask you about some news that broke this morning around the decision in russia that president putin is not going to come to the g-8 summit next week. i wonder if what we think about this decision by mr. putin, tho will that affect