.

>> do you recall a similar event in your political career? >> i will be frank with you all. [laughter] i think it is based on racism. [applause] there is an end in her and feeling a bomb many people in this country that an african-

american author not to be president and ought not be given the same respect as if he were white. this has permeated politics ever since i have been involved back in the 1960's. not only in this out but also in many places throughout the nation. >> we will shih tzu that entire hour and a 20 minute call -- we will show you that entire debate on c-span. >> next, an oversight hearing on u.s. state department contractors in afghanistan. the commission on wartime contract and in iraq and afghanistan purpose top state department officials and embassy contractors involved in alleged misconduct. photos were recently released showing armor group embassy contractor employees and reportedly engaged in alcohol-

induced incidences of nudity and sexual misconduct in afghanistan. this program is one hour, 40 minutes. >> mr. kennedy, my understanding is you will provide a statement. you have graciously invited others to join. if there is a specific question, your the leader of the group. we will look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, sir. thank you for the opportunity to appear before the commission today. i appreciate the commission's ongoing review of these

important contractual issues facing the u.s. government, in particular the state department in iraq and afghanistan. the secretary of state and the entire leadership of the state to part ensure your deep concern about the outrageous conduct by a small group of armour group in kabul. the incidents of misconduct are repugnant and demanded a swift and appropriate action. as the senior management officer, i take responsibility for failed to prevent them and not uncovering them earlier. as representatives of united states government, is our obligation to adhere to the highest standards of individual behavior and conduct. the behavior that was captured in graphic images, dishonor their colleagues and the state department in a country where the success of u.s. objective is based on the cultural sensitivity of all personnel, including employees under contract.

when these allegations came to light, the secretary directed that corrective action be taken immediately along with a thorough examination. the secretary has charged personally to take everything necessary step to ensure that all personnel, including contractors, meet the highest standards of individual behavior and conduct. upon learning of the conduct of these rogue employees, we initiated an investigation by air diplomatic security service and the inspector general's office. to date, 165 armored group personnel have been interviewed and a regional security officer is interviewing third country national guard supervisors and local national staff. we have taken actions. eight armored regards have been removed from the state department contract and four more have reside. each of these 12 individuals have departed afghanistan. armor group's entire management team is being replaced.

two or remove from the contract and two have resigned. three of the managers have departed afghanistan and the final manager will depart on september 16, after a hand over to his replacement. since the guard housing at camp sullivan is located close to the compound, an embassy assistant regional security officer now has been stationed at camp sullivan and the consumption of alcoholic beverages has been prohibited at kent sullivan. it is essential we took these actions. are paramount responsibility was and is to ensure the continued and uninterrupted provision of security services by well- disciplined, well-supervised, and professional guard force. our roof or must always be to provide the most secure environment possible. as the state department deploys i knew an expedition always come up security is critical.

we are carving out a new road as we operate for the first time in zones of active conflict regional security officers and assistance carry out their duties in a complement to ensure that our security is not breached. the state department has not lost and cannot lose and will lose sight of the fact that security of u.s. mission personnel in afghanistan and elsewhere is our first priority. our security operations in afghanistan and iraq are on like those at any other of our 263 posts around the world. we are writing a new set of rules and policies as we go. in most cases, where contractors provide static guard services at embassies throughout the world, personnel are almost exclusively local hires with homes and families to which they return each night. however, in afghanistan and iraq, a third country nationals have been required to staff our local guard force and our contract provides housing and meals at a camp.

in both countries, the situations have called for rapid deployment of security contractors for an uncertain duration. for obvious reasons, our contractors have faced significant challenges of retaining employees in both countries. thus, it is not only difficult to find contractors back and meet our requirements but it brings with what you need logistical challenges. -- unique logistical challenges. our initial operations in both countries benefited enormously from the protective support provided by the u.s. military. in 2004, the department of defense withdrew its personnel and the state department had to take responsibility for insuring provision of the services. nearly 2500 contractor serving as static guards in iraq and afghanistan are engaged solely to protect personnel on the ground. they do not participate in either combat activities or law enforcement. >> we will allow you as much

time as you need. do not feel you have to look at the clock. >> thank you, sir. in afghanistan, a major national security firm was contract to provide essential on-site control of the housing camp and the conduct of aerostatic cars who spend their off-duty hours there. however, these residents make evident the need for stronger state department oversight. this includes when contractors are off duty. unless that oversight can be effectively provided by our contractors, closer management by government personnel will be necessary. we have always had in place a rigorous regime of oversights for security operations by contractor personnel while they're on duty. allegations of contract misconduct are investigated and it substantially, appropriate action is taken. over the life of this contract, when concerns were raised about the conduct of space of the individuals, we asked for these individuals to be removed from the contract.

when we identified deficiencies, we followed up. when the most recent allegations came to our attention, the department demanded immediate action by the contractor and the individuals involved were removed from the contract. the many dedicated individuals have provided essential protection. they have maintained security in this danger environment. as the department of state reduced its security support, the use of a contract guard force was the only way to meet the new requirements quickly. locally, there are only 1700 diplomatic security special agent in the department. there posted domestically and overseas. this group of dedicated employees safeguards 265 diplomatic and consular posts and protect foreign and domestic dignitaries and carries a critical investigations vital to protect our national security by ensuring that u.s. passports and

visas do not fall into the hands of criminals and those who do is even greater harm and they perform a myriad of other essential security responsibilities. to fully staff afghanistan and iraq requires nearly 2500 static cards. it is triple that number when factoring in rotations. we cannot hire and train sufficient numbers of additional state department personnel to meet these sharply increased demands in the short timeframe. the unpredictable duration of missions at this level of intensity present a real challenge in determining the appropriate level of the state department's diplomatic security system. it is difficult to scale up the size of our security force and it is equally challenging to ratchet it back. one of the primary reasons the contractors have been used to fill gaps. the cost of using contractors is often higher than it would be to hire and manage an internal work

force. we need to explore alternative mechanisms to meet fluctuating levels of need from -- for diplomatic security in the future. these events bring into focus a broader issue regarding the extensive dependence in the foreign affairs committee on the use of contractors. secretary clinton has directed state and u.s. id to develop options for effective and efficient ways to advance our foreign policy objectives. while we continue our analysis we look forward to discussing and considering the commission's recommendations. the state department must use its extensive experience in brokering services to protect oversees diplomats at facilities. we have to continue tot)f advane our national security services. we must also redouble our efforts to ensure that contractors are performing in accord with our policies and our values at all times. i would like to review in some

detail the history of the department's contract for standing guard in kabul for the department first contract with pae as an interim measure. in july of 2005, an award was made to mvm who made the transition phase but what was unable to reach a point where they could reach contract performance and they were terminated. the pae-berger contract remained in force. in march 2007, and the contract award was made to former group north america after full and open competition involving a number of countries. this contract has required extensive oversight in management's. we have issued seven deficiency notices, addressing 25 deficiencies, one cure notice and one that show cause notice. each deficiency notice, your letter ensure cause notice

required corrective action to resolve these issues. i want to take a minute to outline the major steps already taken. in june 2007, allegations of misconduct and appropriate -- and inappropriate actions happened. the department pursued each allegation and request immediate action plans. armored troop addressed each delegation. july 19, 2007, the local guard contract allowed for a 90-day transition period to in sure that contractors had adequate time for full performance. the department issued a letter of warning to convey the department's serious concerns with transocean progress and our expectation of full contract compliance. april 30, 2008, final deficiency letter, the department issued a second letter of reprimand due to our group's inability to correct previously identified deficiencies including

sufficient guard relief. may, 2008, g-4s, acquired armor group. the management team with extensive experience in providing static guard service and other u.s. embassies worldwide committed to resolving all outstanding issues. the department was confronted with a difficult decision. it was whether to continue the contract because of deficiencies or to consider alternate vendors when there had been only one other qualified bidder for this contract and on the prior round of bidding, a previous vendor was selected but failed to perform for it the department decided to exercise its option to extend the contract for one year. september, 2008, show cause. the state department sent armored group a third letter of

reprimand for failure to permanently correct staffing shortages despite the recommendations made by wackenhut. over the next five months, the department conducted an extensive dialogue with armored group and a sufficiently demonstrated its ability to resolve the many deficiencies. on january 24, 2009, the contract in officer and diplomatic security judge ordered to be compliant with the contracts, staffing requirements. despite the administrative deficiencies, the department did not observe any breaches of the security of the mission. for the constant oversight and the contract and officers, diplomatic security personnel on the ground in kabul felt that the administrative contract deficiencies did not jeopardize the security and safety of the personnel assigned to our mission. static security at embassy

kumble as well as all our overseas missions is based upon multiple layers of staffing to insure appropriate security coverage and no single points of failure. in february, 2008, on manned hours reached a peak of 1440 hours. that was out of the total 85,000 hours. that is 1.7%. a guard posted at the embassy would have a contractual obligation for six static guards at all times with a roving guard available to take the place of the individual on break. on several occasions, the regional security officer observed the sixth guard post covered by only five guards. the absence of one individual for one hour would represent an unmanned hour. it would not raise security concerns, given the redundant coverage in place. while staffing shortage for armored group received deficiency notices and failure

to meet contract expectations, they did not represent a security risk. based upon our review to date, the safety and security of our diplomats has not been compromised and security of the embassy was not threatened. there's constant communication with and collaborative efforts by the contract officer and diplomatic security in washington and regional security officers on the ground in kabul. the weekly meetings and sometimes daily meetings are held on contract performance. it involves a federal agent that sits in washington and worked daily with the contract officer representatives on the ground who are also diplomatic the court -- federal agents. the u.s. government is constantly confronting new challenges as we manage in that environment. we and corporate lessons learned

to ensure that these issues are not repeated. while we continue to undertake further investigation into these matters, several points are clear. the safety and security of our personnel is our top priority. we must provide the most secure environment possible for employees to conduct our foreign policy. as representatives of the united states government, it is our obligation to adhere to the highest standards for individual behavior. this is a single standard for all employees, u.s. government and contractor alike. we must ensure that contract oversight is direct and all reports of problems are fully investigated. we must have in place a rigorous regime of oversight for security operations. we must find the right balance between u.s. government employees and contractors in environs like afghanistan and iraq were pursued new alternatives for the provision of security. other actions will depend upon

our ongoing investigation and is necessary and appropriate, we will bury the contract. once the investigation is complete, we look forward to discussing the findings with the commission. thank you for providing me with this opportunity to appear before> thank you secretary kennedy. just so you have a sense of what will happen, we will go to my cochair to ask for a set of questions and then to several commissioners to comment. i will go last. the commissioners will do a seven minute first-round and three in the second. i think we're all set. x4u>> thank you, commissioner. i would like to make an observation and read a note from secretary clinton's response to senator mack haskell. this complement's and relates closely to your statement.

she wrote a personal note on the bottom of a letter to secretary -- to senator mechanical. she said "i hope to discuss the problems we have with you. because of the excess of outsourcing of too many critical state and aid functions with you at your convenience. " that is a powerful statement read the letter is on target in terms of generating a quick response in identifying accountability. i personally and we as a commission would support. you talked in your testimony about closer management of contractors and a mandate to explore alternative issues that were made by secretary clinton. in your statement, you also talked about trying to determine the right balance and whether

you need to go to new alternatives. that is a statement on my part that the commission looked forward to following those actions throughout the course of the next few months. it is really critical. the first area i would like to explore with you this -- we have taken multiple trips to afghanistan. i have had the opportunity to go in november of last year and april of this year in august of this year. on each trip we stopped by the state department and have gone out to where the state department accomplish as it were -- its work. on each trip, we have been briefed by the contractor officer representatives and the individuals responsible to work with them. those are the individuals that are the contract in officers eyes

this has been going on, the bigger part of it, has been going on, it appears, since the december holiday party, at least. the contract issues that require close oversight have been going on for 27 months in terms of putting the company on record, both the company and the original company contractor and the acquiring organization. it is troubling. i will ask for your comments -- whether the continuous employee misconduct has not been disclosed or revealed. when we met a few days ago last week, we were told about daily trips into the compound. this morning, it was clarified that maybe they are weekly

trips. in light of the problems that have occurred and responsibility that resides with contrasting officer representatives, we have been told about shortages and the best or more. we have been told by at 47 and were promised four. that was directed by the individuals responsible for that. i would appreciate your comments relative to whether you think your contract in officers on the ground are doing the job as anticipated by state department and if not, why not? >> thank you sir. there is no question that we should have done more. i make no brook for that. that is what i told secretary and that is what set in my statement. we had focused on ensuring that the contractor was delivering the contract services during the duty hours, making sure that the

posts that were specified in the contract for duty were covered. that is why you can see, as we have identified in both my statement and much other material, that we were pursuing regularly with the contractor every deficiency that day had in making them correct them for their performance. we simply made a mistake. we assumed that the contractor was going to be managing its conduct at the guard camp in accordance with the standards in the contract as your fellow cochair outlined. on a regular basis, the contract and officers did visit the guard camp. the other representative diplomatic security were at the

guard camp on a regular basis. that was during their performances by the on duty personnel, the regional security officers, contract and other regional security personnel were talking on a daily basis to the supervisors, to the guards while they're on duty and constantly engaging them in a dialogue. at no time, over the course of this period, to the best of our knowledge, did anyone say to us at any point, "there is this misconduct going on." we should have been having more presence, a permanent presence on the compound and that is what, having learned about these despicable incidences, that is what we have seven x 24 coverage in the compound. >> i appreciate that.

i will not ask you to respond to it. the way you laid it out, at a minimum, conspiracy is a strong word but i will make the observation that it had no time this was disclosed, which i accept that statement, i have heard that in the l one, we have learned conspiracy is a strong word but someone in our group must of work real hard so your state employees did not know about this. given the testimony and discussions and the results of your interviews, if you were to find out today or in the near term, and we have been told that your of more senior managers may have stopped by a party on june 15 and then they left and apparently did not know

the severity because the party's continued. if you were to find out that there was instead a discussion by the most senior managers in armor group that on june 15 at the party that maybe this had gone over the edge and was inappropriate and that whether through collegial cooperation or just accepting someone's expressed in the past that boys will be boys, that what ever it was, if you were to find out that that did occur and they made a decision then that they will let the party go on and they left, would that change your outlook entirely? how would that change your outlook in terms of if they had

that discussion and they want to shut it down, maybe the instances might not have occurred. what would be your reaction? >> first of all, it is absolutely clear to me that there was a failure on the part of the armor group north america representatives on site per there is no doubt about that. that is why when this came to attention, we went to armored group headquarters and asked that all those supervisors be relieved. it is clear that they should have stopped these parties. i have seen the pictures. you have seen the pictures. it is a no-brainer. that conduct is appalling and should have been stopped immediately. the failure of the management on site to do what they should have done, to adhere to the standards of the contract, cost us to ask for their removal, which has been accomplished.

if it turns out that there was, as you use the word, "a conspiracy"to keep this away from the state department. it turns that to be larger than that, i stand by the statement that i made my testimony which isgw that we are waiting for the results of the investigation and we will decide. whether or not is proper to continue this contract for it >> thank you because it is really the ultimate decision which is should the united states government continue to contract with an organization that does not seem to be able to put their conduct in trouble and acceptable order. >> matt asked clarifying question? did you ask wackenhut to remove the managers or to require it?

>> we ask them to remove the managers and that they had not removed them, we would have required it. >> ok, was that their first suggestion? >> it was our suggestion. >> thank you. >> it was our strong suggestion. >> we will go to commissioner irvin. >> everyone who has seen these photographs of this june 15 incident are outraged by it and shocked. the same is true for the other behavior we are aware of in august. no one would disagree with that. i am also very much troubled by the state department's repeated characterization, not just of these incidents, but of a whole litany of problems of the course of two years with this contract. both in secretary clinton's response to senator mccasdkel

and mr. mosiers testimony in june and the extensive colloquy he had with them. the statement draws a distinction, attempt to draw a distinction, between contract compliance and the security of the embassy. despite the administrative deficiencies, the department did not observe any breach of the mission. your own letters, there's a june, 2007 letter, the security of the embassy is in jeopardy. there is an august, 28 letter, "upon review of the most recent corrective action plan, the government has serious concerns regarding former group's ability to respond."

this june 15 incident, the august incident, all of these i would argue have the potential to inflame afghan opinion in general and the opinion of afghan personnel on the embassy list to endanger the lives of our personnel. in march, before that, we had 18 guards, apparently, the were off-duty of their post and some for as long as three hours. we then learned in may of 2009, there was this operation snack pack5rñ incident when some guar, on their own initiative, went to kabul dressed as afghans and pretended to undertake a reconnaissance mission. the potential for loss of life is huge. for a while the embassy was night blind as a result of that. all of these is sutton's are not administrative deficiencies.

thisjl= behavior, over the coure of time, jeopardize the security of the embassy. how can you justify the distinction? >> commissioner, we are not attempting to justify anything. we are attempting to describe a set of facts on the ground. i am not offering justification for armored troop's performance. we are drawing a distinction between the off-duty conduct of a certain number of former personnel which was reprehensible and totally inappropriate, to say the least. and they're on duty performance in protecting the u.s. embassy facilities. there were administrative deficiencies. we were the ones calling these administrative deficiencies to the attention of former group by

our constant monitoring of their performance on a daily basis in reporting back to washington. the distinctions between on duty and off duty, the contrasting language you quoted, is certainly, yes, we said that. we were attempting to convey to our group our great concern about their performance about their onto responsibilities. all the evidence to date indicate that there was never a breach of embassy security. there have been two major vehicle-born bombings. one was up the street from the american embassy compound and one was just up the street from

camp sullivan were the reactions and the discipline and the process and engage in by the armored group personnel was exemplary. >> explain to me then why this language was used in these letters in 2007 and 2008 if the course of conduct by armored troop did not endanger the security of the mission? >> in an attempt to get our group's attention -- armor group's attention, we want to shock them and say they were endangering their continued contractual relationship with the state department. if they did not fail to correct these deficiencies. >> it said it endanger the security of the mission. let's pursue that further. you could really get their attention by terming the contract, failing to exercise the option to continue and you did not do that.

if you want to record something, -- reward something, you do more of it, if you want to penalize something, you do less of it. you continued this contract. why is it, under the circumstances we have had for these two years? >> because, as i said in my testimony,]dí operating in a zoe of conflict is something new and different for the united states government's civilian side. we put into place and open competition for a contractor, mvm was the winner of that. they failed to performxeq we thn terminated them. we went out with another round of bids for open and full competition.

we have eight bidders on a contract for it only two of which were technically qualified. armour was selected. the decision was made that our group was in the process of correcting these deficiencies -- our group was in the process of correcting these deficiencies. compare that to no contract in place and, given the difficulties of operating as i have outlined and the lack of response of bidders previously, we saw a ramping up in movement toward and by our group to full and complete compliance with every single contract specifications. that is something we never saw with the previous contract award in, mvm, they never made any progress. we saw extensive progress by armor group.

>> my time is limited. i want to give mr. mozer a chance to respond. given what you know now, is it the intention of the state department to terminate this contract? what do you have to do in order to get the state department to terminate a contract like this? >> as mr. kennedy has pointed out, we want to see the results of the investigation. we tried to take arbitrary action. a public hearing is not necessarily the place we need to have a discussion about the future of contractual actions. the members of the commission that met with make last year no the we're actively discussing what our options are in this situation. we approach it seriously.

one of my contract in officers that as this contract met with this group friday night. we are trying to engage with him constantly in -- and to try to lay the basis for our decision making process what we will do in the near future. >> thank you. >> mr. green. >> it is more fun to be up here. [laughter] in your opening statement, you spoke very briefly about the uniqueness of kabul and baghdad and the way they are supported logistically and i accept that fact. there are a number of other posts, not a lot, but a number that used third country

nationals in the guard force. would you briefly explain how they are supported logistically? >> thank you very much. you are entirely correct. to enter 65 diplomatic posts around the world -- 265 diplomatic posts around the world, only couple and baghdad -- kabul and baghdad have compounds or the individuals live. about 260 other ones, the individuals are local nationals and go home every night. in a couple of them, usually in the gulf, they are third country nationals but they live on their own. they do not live up in major compounds like we have in afghanistan and the iraq.

they are also not forced to remain on those compounds by the security situation there. the life amenities, the ability to get out and go shopping, to go for a walk, to go to the beach, to do all those other things that one would normally describe as normal activity that a human being does to get a break from their work are available in those other locations, even when they are third country nationals. they're not available in afghanistan and iraq. >> who has the contract in baghdad? >> triple canopy has the contract for the static guard. >> have there been any similar sorts of incidents with triple canopy? >> no sir, we are not aware of any incidents of this nature. >> how would you account for the difference between the two which are operating in similar

environments? >> there is a major and minor reason. the major reason is that the guard camp that triple canada uses in baghdad is literally adjacent to the united states embassy. it is on part of a larger embassy compound. even when the embassy was in the republican palace, it was a very short distance away and there was much more movement back and forth. there was perforce a presence always around that compound, the local guard compound in baghdad, because of geography and that is something we have taken to heart. that is why we have changed their policy and have an assistant regional security officer in residence at the kabul compound because it is 6 kilometers away from the embassy.

>> will that be a permanent situation? >> yes, sir. >> ok, you have, by far, i think, more experience in management than any other senior officials in the department, either past or present. this includes the oversight of diplomatic security and the acquisition of contrasting activities over the department. as you know, there are always good contractors and contractors that are not so good. have you ever, in your long experience, seen another contractor who has failed in so many areas receive so many chances to improve? i'm not just talking about the

technical and administrative deficiencies that we have all talked about and known about. i'm talking about the ethical and behavioral aspects of it. i stress the ethics because i think that that is as important if not more important than some of the other issues such as whether or not the gym equipment is satisfactory or the guards or so -- are temporarily using government-furnished weapons. i think it is a reflection on the company culture metal levels, particularly the management of the company and it is a reflection on our country at a very critical time when we are attempting to win the hearts and minds of the afghan people.

i would like your reflection and comments on that. >> commissioner, there is no question that this does reflect very adversely on the management of former group, north america. there is no doubt about that. you ask about drawing a comparison. i really wish i could draw a clear comparison. the problem that i have is the uniqueness scale context. the two contracts we have, one in kabul, one in baghdad, for local guard services does -- has no other comparison in the world. we are engaged in a new era of protecting american embassies in expeditionary ways and zones of conflict. we are learning as we are going. i take responsibility for the foibles that take place along

the way. armor group north america has operated in iraq and afghanistan. they have managed guard contracts in both locations breathing managed the guards contract at the british embassy in kabul. wackenhut north america is a partner in managing 51 local guard contracts in other locations in the world. this is why we felt that the expertise that wackenhut, now part of a larger group, brought to this. they assign responsibility for the oversight recently to wackenhut because of their experience in 51 locations. even our group before as eight

or 10 contracts with the state department. we thought that they would have the discipline and the process to make this a successful contract and, as we watched the increasing delivery of armor group, we thought they were on the right track. we were clearly wrong in terms of the context. >> thank you. i want to go to this issue of terminating contracts. that issue is not new. what you just told us today is that you will wait for the results of this investigation and then decide whether to continue the contract. that was the exact same situation with blackwater previously. ig spa said you were waiting for the outcome of the investigation which ended in criminal indictment in order to determine whether to continue that contract.

the contract was a situation where, in iraq, you have lost the heart and mind of the iraqi people with respect to black water. it was overwhelming that the iraqi people disliked black water intensely. you continued to contract with them. it was only until the iraqi government said that they were kicking them out of iraq, that you actually took action. you're shaking your head but that is my understanding. you can correct me in a minute. when you did not turn your contract with blackwater and the problems in iraq, that sent a message to other contractors that you can do a lot and not get your contract terminated by black water. i asked the state department for their documentation on that decision to continue their contract with blackwater, to extend it. it was extended shortly after

and we were given -- we were told that there was one document relevant to that decision. i thought it would be fairly complex. are we accomplishing the major mission of winning the hearts and minds of the people versus the security? there was only one document which only said to re-up the contract of blackwater. there was no analysis. i raise this because this is in the same context. you're giving us the same response as the black water situation. i don't know there is any comments that you will take action, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. >> first of all, commissioner, the black water contract had additional option year that we

did not engage. there were additional option years that we did not engage. >> because you're kicked out -- they were kicked out of iraq by the iraqi government. >> one of the terms of the contract was that a company must have a license to do business. that then defaulted. >> it was not your decision. it was that they did that have a license to operate in iraq. >> that was our decision we put that specification and the contract that they would be permitted to operate by the host government. >> golan. >> on the question about -- we take very seriously -- we are there in iraq and afghanistan not just to be there. we are there to deliver and support the foreign policy goals

of united states. and the situation of the incidents that took place in kabul are absolutely appalling and as i said in my testimony, those incidents are under review. we have the inspector general and diplomatic security service looking at them. we will make a decision on what we need to do about this matter. >> i hope you do it in a thoughtful way where you weigh the costs and benefits and have some documentation on it. there was the documentation, absolutely none, with the decision on the black or contract -- black water contract. i can tell you that. it was a surprise to me. is it common to have a contract with several deficiencies, one

show cause and one short notice, is that fairly routine? >> there are only two contracts for guard services of this kind in the entire world. >> i just mean in all of your contracts. >> we have had cured notices issued. we have had that it should on construction contracts. having deficiencies in church notices -- and sure notices in volume, absolutely. in cure notices, absolutely. these are two unique contracts that we are working our way through. if the performance at armor group, excluding the recent events that are now under review, if the performance at

armor group had been on the same trajectory as that of the previous contract award in, mvm, we would have terminated. but with the armored group resolving the deficiencies, we saw thatb as a positive step. would we have like it to be faster? absolutely. on the other hand, we compared it to the degree of difficulty that we had experienced in afghanistan in putting together a full-fledged local guard contract in that location under those circumstances and made the decision that the trajectory of the contract's performance was positive. >> have you interviewed -- you interviewed one of his 65 employees? -- 165 employees?

did you interview the regional officer who was on site? >the regional security officer who was in charge of the camp sullivan from the time of december, 2008 to july, 2009 and we know a new person has come on board since then. have you interviewed the former rso? >> the answer is yes. >> was he aware of december party and the june 15 party? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> my time is up. >> i have four brief questions. there is so much here to get that. mr. kennedy, at the point of award for this contract, how

many submissions did you receive? >> there were eight bids on this contract of which only two -- >> did wackenhut submit? >> yes. >> where they judged to be acceptable? >>no. >> what was their price? >> we will lead to get that for you. >> do you have that? was it $272 million, plus or minus? >> that sounds familiar. >> that is good. they are technically unacceptable but their price was $272 million. what was agna's price? >> $189 million. >> mr. kennedy, your own ig did

and expects in in january 06 of kabul. quoting from page 2 of that report, "afghanistan presents a dangerous and stressful operating environment, stringent security requirements, constrained work schedules come, consume large amounts of resources, restrict mobility and affects post morale. the conduct of the embassy's protective detail projects an overly aggressive image that has potential to generate negative opinions of united states." this is from january, 2006. with that as background, mr. kennedy, where did thesep# guyy the blues? -- by theses booze?

>> we think they bought it from the u.s. military commissary. >zthere is also a commissary n the american embassy compound, as well. >> too plainly state it, i think they bought at two places. at the embassy and they took it to their camp, is that there? >> we understand that they bought it in two locations, isaf nadel commissary and the embassy commissary and took it to the camp. >> if they buy it at the embassy, to get to the camp, they have to get an armored vehicles in an armored convoy and drive 3 miles to the camp, is that fair? >> the guard's move themselves.

yes sir. >> it is an armed convoys of so the ball leaves the compound. the other place they bought booze was camp kia? is that the nato compound? >> i have never heard that term used. >> the booze does not leave the compound. they can drink their bloo --re t cannot take it off site. why do you allow alcohol sales at the embassy in kabul? >> because we believe that individuals be a responsible, they should be able to drink. there are rules about when you

can drink related to the use of weapons. we have since ended the use of alcohol on camp sullivan. there is the ability to drink responsibly. it has never been an issue up until now. >> have used up alcohol sales at the embassy in kabul? >> no, sir. >> have you stopped the practice of having alcohol that is sold at the embassy able to leave the embassy? i conceded the u.s. government employee takes the alcohol to their apartment. that is one thing. have you stopped the practice of letting alcohol bought at the compound in the compound? >> i will confirm that but by bowl -- by banning the consumption of alcohol by the contractors at canceled, the logical extension of bathat, i m

making the assumption that the two pieces are tied together. >> i understand that the band is no alcohol at can't sell them. it is a ban imposed by contractors over the summer. is that accurate? the ban was imposed by the contractor in mid-august, as i understand. after the contractor learned of the audience -- incidences, the contractor banned the use of alcohol. >> the ambassador has banned alcohol consumption at the embassy compound? >> no. >> the ambassador banned alcohol consumption at camp sullivan. >> call. that's large numbers of guards

move back and forth in armored vehicles. >> right. >> i can't tell you that the contractors bought the alcohol went in the armored shift change vehicles. >> that will be a matter for the investigation to determine. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. the embassy rso in september '08 issued a very short memo, subject is alcohol consumption policy. september '08, a year ago and nine months or so before the june parties started, he changed the policy on consumption of alcohol for all rso employees, contractors and so on. he changed it. he said effective immediately all american staff and the rso chain of command which includes contractors are limited to two alcoholic drinks per day.

my question is why in september '08 did the rso feel a need to change a policy to two alcoholic drinks per day? what was the policy before that? unlimited? >> my understanding is that before that they used a post policy on alcohol consumption. >> what was that? >> no limitation as far as i know. >> okay. so before -- >> the operational policy of the operations in afghanistan which was deteriorating, as we know, the rso made his own decision, as i understand it, to impose this limit of two drinks and certainly nothing within eight hours of going on a shift. >> and that's the part that's in the contract. no drinks before eight hours going on.

>> correct. >> my question to you is, i take this for the record if you must, was the rso aware of partying, excessive partying, excessive alcohol consumption at the camp, was that part of his decision to change the alcohol policy to two change the alcohol policy to two drinks per day in september 2008? >> the investigation that's on going, commissioner. but the investigation today indicates, and i think one of the co-chairs itself made the statement, that no one from the embassy or the u.s. military were aware -- >> his statement was, we have seen no evidence -- >> that's right. not aware. >> what i'm asking you is was the rso aware of excessive alcohol consumption and was that a part of his decision to change the alcohol policy in september '08? >> that will have to be the last question. >> to get to the exact specifics of your question, we'll take that for the record.

>> thank you. >> okay. you're going to be given ten minutes because he's going to be leaving. he'll take both rounds right now. >> and i apologize for leaving early. i have to be on post. a couple points. first of all, i got my sympathies for ambassador kennedy. part of the problem at your level as i know and i think is we don't all hear everything that is going on and then we have cleanup. i think that's the case here. i think you're doing a terrific job at it. but there are other things i think you could also do. i want to be clear about this. this is the equivalent of ab u grade. last night i went on the web just to see how many web sites they had of this -- of these photos. and there were loads of them. and some of them are linked to sex web sites which really is going to look really good with muslims in afghanistan. so here we are trying to help stamp the crystal out and we

have this garbage on the web. so you have my sympathies. another problem is that this isn't really news to state. you say this is relatively new or in a new situation. actually, it's five years. because my former boss, done rumsfeld, made that change five years ago. five years is a long time. most wars don't even last five years. some last less than a week. so to say fwheer a learniwe're situation, this sounds like we're in the first grade for five years. problem there. and funlly, cure notices. i can tell you having been in and out of the contracting world, cure notices scare the heck out of contractors. you didn't just give them cure notices. you gave them deficiency letters. there were records of problems. and i, by the way, i've been in touch with a bunch of our folks in kabul as recently as yesterday. and i want to read you some of the reactions coming out of our

own embassy in kabul about this. we knew nothing of the contract problems until the story broke. an incredible breakdown of communications. problems stemming from 2007 and ds, diplomatic security, never passed this on to us. they have their own culture. i think this is the biggest challenge for you, ambassador kennedy. dealing with a culture that fundamentally is out of whack with the interest of the united states of america and afghanistan. and i'll tell you why. i'd like you to answer a couple questions. first of all, you talked about why the option was picked up with whackenhut. you picked up another option this year. there were other competitors. you can only say there were two. and it says here right on top, contracted personnel should be expected to perform and conduct themselves proper to usg commission. did anybody consult the usg commission before you picked up this contract? this option, i mean.

>> well, the post is informed that we are -- that we are picking up the -- >> i want to know did ambassador ikenbury know you were picking up this particular option unless given a bill of particulars or the dcm or, i don't know whoever, anybody at the senior level where they give a bill of particulars of what is going on since 2007 and told in spite of that we're picking up this option? and by the way, there are a couple competitors out there. did anybody brief them on that? >> i'll have to check with the post. we -- the post is informed when we pick up options. i'll have to find out if -- how far up the chain of command. >> and how far in advance they were informed so they could make an informed judgment as to whether the option should be picked up. i'd like the answer to that for the record. another question. right now we're talking about possibly sending 20 to 40,000 additional troops to afghanistan. has the state department raised

the defense department or with the white house the notion that maybe in part those 20,000 or 40,000, there ought to be troops to replace the characters we have out there right now? >> on that question, sir, my only comment on that is that it is to refer to a recent decision by the department of defense to reduce further the dods use of personnel for static guards, military personnel. and dod is replacing its static guards, its military personnel with contractors. >> okay. >> we'll look into that. but i'm not -- i am not optimistic that when the department of defense does not have enough personnel to protect its own facilities, it will be prepared to loan up. >> that's in afghanistan, correct? >> that's in afghanistan and iraq. >> okay. >> both. >> well, two >> well, two things first. if they're adding troops, but leave that aside, presumably,

the department of defense has some contractors other than this one, but it could use its own troop commitment to static guards. wouldn't that be a safe assumption? that is correct. the requirements in statute require us to have a different contracting process than dod does. >> yeah, but the statute simply says go with the cheapest which is ridiculous and i'm sure my colleagues will talk about that, but leaving that aside, you are picking up an option and you have now picked up an option. is there any reason why you cannot descope the contract you now have. you're looking at me puzzled. >> let me give you contracting 101. >> what are we descoping, sir? you would then basically cut back to a limited level, if you don't want to terminate for default, if you don't want to terminate for convenience, apparently these guys are losing

money. so you can descope the contract and reduce the number of people that they are contributing to a very, very small number of posts and then contract out the remainder of the requirement to somebody else. you can bridge for a certain period of time until you contract that out and then when the option year comes up next year, you drop the option entirely and you have another contractor. a, have you considered this and if you have or have rejected it, i would like to know why. we have all options on the table and that's why, as i said in my earlier testimony, i believe in response to commissioner irvin's question, all options are under review. >> again, given the situation we've got and as you know very well with what couldn't have been a crisis. let's face it, when there were 18 guard posts vacant, you say there was no risk. nothing happened. i guarantee if something had happened there would have been a risk and what i'm hearing is from our people out in kabul, our state department out in

kabul is that guns and alcohol don't mix, even two. can you drive the streets of washington with guns in your car? drugs and alcohol don't mix. we still have a problem. what we need to be doing is getting rid of these people and whatever the investigation leads to, we need to get rid of them now because that internet is killing us. my question again is why do you think an investigation must be completed before you get rid of a contractor, before you scope a contract. because of the specifications and the requirements in contract law. the contract law allows you to scope. commissioner, we'll look at this again. one more question, correct me if i'm wrong, some of them were afghan, correct? >> no.

were afghans present? the investigation was ongoing and the information. >> can i clarify? >> please. >> thank you, ambassador, in the august 1st instance, that was an afghan cafeteria worker, a local national. i'm -- i thought the commissioner was referring to the parties.incident at the cafeteria was a single afghan worker. >> absolutely. that was the clarification. our information to date, because the investigation is still ongoing is that the parties took place among the members of the armored group ex-patriot, but -- >> on the -- we've interviewed just a background, one of our witnesses who have come in the

next panel. he was responsible for the 90 life support people who provided life support. he personally and it's in his statement, went out and retrieved afghan nationals that were at the party personally. so maybe your investigation needs to focus its questions better. we were in the process of interviewing all of the national employe employees. if i could just intervekt for the record and his statement says about these parties, one person who had apparently run out of urine took the fire hose and took them between his legs, we had three afghan nationalis and told him to take the hose and go to the front gate. i was annoyed and disbusted and the way they were dressed. i had three females who worked

30 feet away from where this was going and during the day there were also 60-plus afghans present, two of whom wery females. >> so if you say that the investigation is ongoing, then i would strongly recommend that one of the first things you should already know about if you don't know about is what you just heard from my fellow commissioners because it seems to me and you know this far better than did i that those afghans who are there are going to tell their relatives and are going to tell their tribes who are going to shoot our kids in afghanistan, that is the chain and we all know it. and it seems to me that it should be top priority for the state department to determine whether indeed afghans were there which it sure looks like and then to use that, if nothing else, as a reason for bringing this miserable contract to an end, which you can do. you can terminate the default.

now, one other question. you have asserted that this firm was improving. i find that difficult to see in light of the letters and the notices and so on. did they at the time the option was granted, have they cured every single item that you had drawn to their attention and if not, how could you justify giving them the option? improvement, being on the course of improvement is not the same thing as curing everything. had they cured everything? >> let me try to -- you had several questions in a string here. let me take them in reverse order, if i might. have they cured every option?@@' >> we have attempted to other

contractors and did not get sufficient responses but we saw the trajectory here. are we pleased? absolutely not. you are asking about the specific question of performance as opposed to conduct. the performance treasury was positive given her previous experience in afghanistan with other contractors. contractors. was made that was the decision that was made. as i said in my statement, commissioner, we are interviewing everyone there. everyone. i think it was right in the earlier part of my statement. the one thing i also do want to comment on is your remarks about the diplomatic security culture, and i am simply going, as old

friend, respectfully disagree with you on that. i would not find the diplomatic security culture, and i do not find a separate culture of diplomatic security that rejects the u.s. national interests or rejects the goals of the u.s. mission in afghanistan. i fundamentally disagree with you on that and simply reject it. for 37 years i've been in this business and i've seen the diplomatic security service engage in difficult and at sometimes heroic efforts to advance u.s. national interests by keeping operations going in a diplomatic way, sir. >> as an old friend, it wasn't me. i was a messenger. i'm simply repeating what i got in an e-mail and that tells me because i know you're absolutely sincere, and i know how dedicated you are and it is always a pleasure with you.

that tells me i've got to disconnect somewhere that i take you at your word and i take the person they heard from in kabul at his word and he creates a massive disconnect that somehow needs to be fixed up because that's in our interest. >> i yield myself seven minutes. i'd love the secretary to have some fairly short answers because i have a lot i want to cover. first off, it appears that what happens in camp sullivan stays in camp sullivan and the fact is it didn't, just like it didn't stay in abu ghraib. in abu ghraib, we had a military unit run amok. in camp sullivan we had charlie group run amok. and you basically made a very important comment in the beginning. you said we didn't pay attention to camp sullivan and some really bad things have happened and we take responsibility and now we're moving on.

i accept that part of the answer, but i want to then just ask you this. we've learned of these incidents from pogo. the lurid behavior, the intimidation by this group, and the intimidation is something that is particularly distressful. we didn't learn it from state and we didn't learn it from anyone else and they learned it first from a lawyer who referred people to pogo. something is really off base. when people have to go through a real different direction. there was no one that they could go to in armor group and get their complaint heard honestly. they were punished. there appears to be no one in state department they felt they could go to and not be punished and our witness from great

britain will tell you that he was basically forced to go because he was trying to stick up for his afghan employees. so this is what really concerns me. i would like to ask each of you, and are you aware of any state department employee who had knowledge of armor group employee misconduct before 2008 or after. is there any story out there that you're aware of, that you're not aware of and i would like for you to go right down. there were examples of armor group misconduct and we asked for those employees to be removed -- >> what kind of conduct was that? >> well, one of the ones was the frequenting of brothels and armor group identified the employees and we asked for them to be removed from the contract. there was other conduct by the person that was trafficking in counterfeit goods and that person was removed from the contract and there were two

others that were also are you moved. for the same conduct or different? >> different behavioral infractions. >> what are the two? >> the other two, i don't recall. >> same thing. his information came to our -- we immediately had the -- had that discussion with armor group and the individuals. >> how did it come to your attention? from armor group or someone else? >> we do get both things. it is -- one of the things that you're going to see that there's a dialogue between us. >> i don't want a long answer. i have so many questions. >> well, then -- >> yes. >> you say you get it both ways. i know part of the way is armor group. what is the other half of both ways? >> the other half is from the rsos on the ground and they're

going to -- >> you've had disclosure both from state people as well as armor. >> i would like the committee to be briefed on these other ins kenses. >> mr. boswell? >> yes. beyond the human trafficking case that mr. moezer mentioned, i was not aware of. >> he mentioned brothels. no, no, let me just clarify. is there any allegation that people were involved in either sponsoring a prostitute or in and somehow being connected with the brothel or the women? >> there are allegations out there that are being investigated by the office of the inspector general. >> relating to people -- employees potentially doing more than frequenting a brothel, but actually participating? >> i don't think i want to get into what they're investigating. >> mr. glenn, do you have anything to add other than these issues that we talked about? >> relating to -- >> are you aware of any state

department employee who had knowledge of any events we heard from mr. mozer who kind of set us off here, thank you, but is there any indication of state employees who were aware of information and did not act on it? >> no, sir. >> okay. let me ask you these questions. how did flagrant breaches of armor group's code of conduct and its contractall obligations go for senior management for months. >> is your testimony, mr. kennedy that basically this conduct was in camp or that was your camp. is that your answer to the question? >> that is the first half of the question, mr. chairman. we were not at camp. we should have been at camp. we are now at the camp. secondly, in the course, that's 24 hours and seven day in residence of the camp at off hours. during the course, though, to the best of our knowledge at

this point in the investigation, we have not determined that any information was given by anyone to the state department about these things and -- >> i have your answer. >> if i could say we spend a great deal of time interacting with the guards at the u.s. embassy and because of those interactions we do not believe at this point that any information was passed. >> why did they delay reporting news of misconduct in an attempt to intimidate people who might report it? >> i have no idea other than just to say that is totally inappropriate. >> they gave you no reason, no justification for why it took them two weeks in the last circumstance? >> they did not, sir. >> did you ask them? >> we have told them that that is an unacceptable action on their part. yes. >> no, the question was did you

ask them why they waited two weeks to give you the information. >> yes, we have asked. >> what was their answer? >> we have got get a formal answer on that. >> well, i'll just tell you, the fact that they have to do research on why it took them two weeks, they didn't tell you which leads to my next question. why did the state department display no signs of outrage at the delayed notice of problems at the armored group encampment. to me, that in and of itself would be grounds for dismissal. and i want to know why -- why no outrage? >> we are outraged by their failure to notify us, mr. chairman. it's among other things and it's in my statement that we are outraged by their failure to notify us, and we have asked in writing -- we have asked in writing for an explanation for why -- why they --

>> i got your answer. does the lowest cost technically standard for security contracts need to be replaced by a best value standard? >> personally, sir, i believe a best value standard is always the best in any contracting exercise. >> which raises the issue. you were basically told by the dod that they were out of camp and that you would have to provide your own security and so you hired louis berger as the first contract in place to pay about, 8 million a month? >> louis berger was in partnership with pane and they were engaging in construction activities in the camp. >> is the answer yes that they're the person you engaged? >> we engaged them, yes. >> i just want a fact. >> yes. >> i'm trying to demonstrate

that, believe it or not, you're between a rock and a hard place. >> yes, sir. >> and you continued with them for a few years. >> while we attempted to execute -- >> it was terminated because they were not satisfactory, did not meet the -- >> they never actually started the contract because they failed to mobilize. >> and so then you hired armor group. >> we have -- >> you have basically dod saying we're out of here. you hire a contractor with a sole source, you have to pay a premium. you know the inspector general and congress will be on you for paying a premium and then you go through a contract process and then you have to deal with lowest cost, technically acceptable. >> correct. >> in your own mind was your attitude, my god, where do we go from here if you had to terminate them? i guess what i'm asking did you in your mind feel that it was your choice to work with a group that was doing marginal, at best

and going out and what is the process if you went out? we're trying to understand should there be a difference in contingency contracting that's different than when you have to hire somebody in a non-warren viernment, and are you stuck with having to deal with a non-war environment in a war environment and does that make the job foolishly difficult and i'll have one last question. >> i agree. >> and then the last question is this, and this is more fundamental. in a war-time environment is providing security for u.s. embassies an approach kwat function to be delegated to contractors, should it be military or should it be a combination of military and contractors. for instance, stayed overseas the security folks who get diplomats around, is a state employee in charge. should it be all government or a combination of government or are you happy to continue to work things out if you can have a

best value standard? >> this is the question the secretary has asked us to look into. we are looking into it, mr. chairman. i personally am very much in favor of the best value standard. in fact, eric boswell and i were on the review panel in iraq that made the recommendation that there be a state department federal agent with every convoy moving in iraq which is why we have assigned the state department federal agent to be in camp sullivan. >> thank you. thank you all. >> thank you, commissioner. a couple of observations and one question. one, i agree with you and best value. technically acceptable, the lowest price has been described to us several times is the rush to the bottom and sometimes the bottom isn't what you want. and that's an observation. secondly, i would like to

reinforce commissioner greene's teasing out proper ererly at th baghdad embassy. you don't have these issues and you outlined them, and essentially different country, different war, different emphasis, high risk. we're not about putting a big house keeping seal of approval with anyone, but if triple can get it right in another camp, there's an awful big lesson in that by itself. the last observation and it ties into my question for you which is going to be about state department employee performance. we've heard, and i wrote down on my notes, wow! we've heard this morning about brothels. we've heard about human trafficking with this company. we've heard about lurid parties.

i would suspect that jimmy buffette. they call it a jimmy buffette party, i guess they dress up like cribbingian or something, but i would suspect that jimmy buffette would take issue with putting his name with that party. i would, i suspect he would. apparently you're out there, but we've got so many of these things that we'll get it for the record, and last of all, i want to re-emphasize the local national issue. i visualize. cafeteria wokker. we don't have pictures of these because apparently they didn't have a camera with them. a cafeteria work aer comes out d the guys come out very, very late and with liquor bottles in their hand. i like the visualizing. he grabbed the individual like that, he touched his bottom.

i guess that's a mundane way of saying it and he said in graphic words that certainly can't be repeated that he used the boy -- you're the kind of boy that i would like to take back to my quarters. to me, it's just totally out of control and it's been going on for a long time. my question is this, we're at the end of having gone through this personally for years and years in my career, the number two guy in a federal organization with 4,000 or 5,000 people. we held regional directors and audit managers and auditors responsible if for extended periods of time there were not under their watch. that whether you want to call it asleep at the switch or not doing their job, whatever.

we're in the performance cycle and we have issues with armor and we're going hear and explore them more, but accountability is critical to any organization. and my question is as you finish your documentation, it's going fill a flow chart with everything that happened, we're at end of the performance year right now, 30th of september. are you going to hold the state department employee, it's bonus time, i know you have different pay grades of bonuses and some of those are very, very high. there were people in charge and contracted representatives that, gee, that's been going on almost a year. are you going to hold those individuals accountable? >> if we discover, sir, that there was failure, absolutely we will hold them responsible. absolutely. >> it's just critical. i say that because it does go both ways. thank you. >> mr. kennedy, secretary

kennedy, i want to get back to this whole issue of the reason for exercising the first option in the second option and what you said in response. the first round, basically is that the trajectory was up and before you exercised the first one there was a record to your satisfaction, the state department satisfaction that armor group was performing. there is a timeline that they put together with various problems with the contract and feel free to take issue with every one of these instances, but according to our timeline, just take the year 2008. in state department the state department had government-issued weapons and january 24, the state department asked that the logistics manager be taken@@@@@ oolinging that they'd been fired.

on april 30, the state department sends a letter identifying other problems including a lack of language profishsy. there wsh 15 occurring deficiencies and four new ones. and the state department said that armor group failed to correct many deficiencies. on june 12, they submit a corrective action plan. and then in july you renew the contract 4 h is that the upward trajectory that in your judgment justified exercising the first action? >> if you take those incidents in conjunction with the staffing all the posts, that is the combination of events, commissioner. @

>> in the spring there was that mission we talked about earlier, operation snack pack. in march it tells them there is concern about the sufficient number of guards. on april 1, the state department denies the waiver to meet requirements. a huge number of the guards can't speak english well enough to understand instructions. n @ á and then there was the party. all these lead up to the -- is this an upward trajectory that justifies exercising the option the second time? >> commissioner, two of the three things you cited, the reconnaissance and the totally

inappropriate parties were unknown to us when we made the award. for example, on the language training, the language capability, the trajectory was up on language training. language profishsy, excuse me. >> and what do you base that on? is there some document that establishes that the language profish we was up? >> yes. there was representatives that the plan was followed up on by the post and also my understanding is by the program management review, the diplomatic security condubts quarterly. that we had pointed out to them that we were disturbed by the language inadquassies and they gave us a credible enough plan that we followed up on. they gave us a plan in march. we followed up on it and by july we were satisfied this was sufficient. >> i'd like to see the documents. would you supply those for the record?

you said you were not going to make a decision about this contract, until the investigation is done. and that's reasonable. i think it's fair to say. but let me ask this. if the investigation, and i hope it proceeds at pace and i assume that it is. if the investigation establish that is all these allegations we're talking about are true, will you pledge to terminate the contract? >> it's hard to state a hypothetical. i can say this. i can imagine facts under unearthed in the investigation that would cause us to immediately terminate the contract. >> so the facts that have already been alleged if

substantiated would not be sufficient? >> no. i just want to see the material on a piece of paper and then i would -- i will act. >> if the investigation substantiates the allegations that we're aware of now, would that be sufficient for the state department to terminate the contract? >> so far, the only facts that are totally in evidence i guess are the three parties. is that what you're? i want to make sure that we're talking toobt exact question. >> the three parties against the backdrop of everything else we've been talking about in 2007, 2008, and 9. >> if i could just inject. add to that that it took them two weeks to notify you. that i think goes with it. >> agreed. >> if you add that in, mr. co-chair, i think that we are

seeing a very, very serious case being made for termination. >> if you find out it was longer than two weeks, it would compound your concern. >> when we hire a contractor, we are hiring them to provide a service or a good and to manage the delivery of that service or good. and the failure on the part of management is a serious, absolutely serious, in my mind, and i'll use the word as a nonlawyer and a noncontracting officer, breach of their responsibility. >> i have three or four other short once. what is your understanding? start with you ambassador. what is your understanding as to -- ambassador bozz well as to the time line, the expected completion date of this

investigation? and any one of you starting with secretary kennedy, what's your understanding of the time by which the state department investigator general's investigation to be done? when do we expect to have this investigation? >> without pinning them down, we have a very senior ds officer out there now looking at the work that the embassy has done and i'll have a better idea when he comes back and tells me. >> as you know, commissioner, there is no state department officer not from the ig who is going to sit here and tell you when the inspector general is going to be done. i simply do not know, sir, that's a question you'd have to ask the inspector general. >> two or three other quick questions. one final quick question. on this issue of the technically acceptable lowest price, has the state department sought statutory relief? you acknowledge that it's a problem and that it was a key problem here. have you tried to work with

congress to get legal relief? >> there have been discussions, yes. >> thank you. commissioner green. congress to get legal relief? there have been discussions, yes. >> you can see this hearing in its entiret. go to our web site. we're going to leaf this now and go live to hear from normer republican president candidate mitt romney. hosted by the group legislative lobbying division called frc action. live coverage on c-span. >> thank you, to be able to have that great introduction. it's an honor. i appreciate that. thank you for the warm welcome also. the music you were hearing from was from the olympic games in 2002. it was great listening to bill bennett. isn't he a treasure? that guy is amazing.

i could listen to pa pa bear all day long. he is just wonderful. i want to say that it's good to see you as well. seeing friends and leaders of the conservative movement from across the country is something that warms my heart. only about a year ago there were quite a few people in this city who were ready to write thauf conservative movement. they were enthraud by barack obama's promise of near pibblecal transformations. their legs were tingling. he spoke majestically framed by greek columns. well, he can spin a speech but he can't spin his record. and i'll think you'd never dream that you'd look back at jimmy carter as the good old days. now, i've had the pleasure of attending the values voters summit every year since 2004. noy what he brings us together is our allegiance to important

and enduring values, the security of our country, the defense of freedom in the world, the success and power of the free enterprise system, and the fundamental rights of every single person including the right to life itself. these are the causes that unite us, and they inspire us for the work we have ahead. >> we know that america has always endured a chorus of critics, people who claim that every ill, every failure in the world is america's fault. but it's never before had a president that was conducting that chorus. he -- you may have seen, he told arab tv that america has dictated to other nations. no, mr. president, america has freed other nations from dictators. [applause]

you saw as well that he told europeans that america has been arrogant, dismisive, and devicive. no, mr. president. in defending liberty, america has been diligent, dedicated, and decisive. [applause] my guess is you're like me. when an american president journeys abroad, it's always nice to see him applauded and praised. but when the price is one apology after another for alleged offenses of the united states of america, it is not worth it. frankly, i would rather see a president greeted abroad by complete silence as long as he is defending our country's character and not playing to our country's critics. [applause]

i think all of you in this room understand that these are times that call for a strong america. china is on track to become the largest economy in the world. president putin is going back to his old ways, harassing, jihaddists murder and threaten innocent people and countries around the world and they plot to attack us here at our home as well. the regime sacrifices its own people to serve its nuclear ambitions. the regime in iran moving fast to develop a nuclear weapon. and all the while, our own economy is reeling and our debts are becoming astronomical. let me say it again. these are times that call for a strong america. we know the source of america's strength. it's the citizens of this country and all that free people can achieve.

free, hard working family oriented risk taking opportunity seeking, pate rotic american people have always been the source of this nation's strength and they always will be. [applause] and here in washington, the best policies are those policies that expand the freedoms of individuals. that broaden their opportunities. that allow individuals to keep more of what they learn. that afford them better education. that let them choose their own health care. and, that turn loose the free enterprise system so that it can create jobs. what president obama has done these last months and what he is proposing to do over the next years will not strengthen america. it would weaken america. his so-called stimulus is a case in point.

the president that it was going to be an immediate boost. he would hold with this boost unemployment below 8% and restore is the economy and create jobs. it hasn't done that. rather than bring back the economy, it brought back 30 years of failed liberal programs and he rushed it through before anyone could even notice. but we did notice. and we are not impressed. [applause] the economy is still shrinking even as the government is still growing. unemployment blew past 8%. it's on its way to 10% now. that's millions and millions more americans out of work. not one new job has been created. you know, the numbers of americans opposing the obama agenda is growing. the voters are going to make their intention clear in the

10eu elections. and that's an option i agree with, by the way. the president's spending and borrowing have also weakened the nation. in the month of july alone, he added $330 billion to the national deficit. and his plan is to add another $1 trillion to debt every year he's in office. he initially admitted that the accumulate lative deficit would swell by $7 trillion over the next ten years. now he acknowledge that is the number is $9 trillion. he will double the national debt in just fie years. those deficits combined with the liblets we have for enentitlements threaten to cause a global collapse in america and in the dollar itself and to pripstate an even deeper crisis. and putting such a crushing, back breaking burden on our

children is unworthy of our national character. and that is why i believe that spending and borrowing is not just economically irresponsible, it is morely wrong. [applause] you know, to strengthen the economy and to create jobs, the president has to stop trying to borrow the country out of a debt problem. you know, i know there are people who are now talking about another stimulus bill for the economy. that's the wrong answer. the right answer is to fix the stimulus we have, throw out the liberal big government programs, and substitute real incentives that will stimulate the private sector and create real jobs. don't repeat the stimulus. repair the stimulus. [applause]

taking more money away from working americans would also make us a weaker nation. candidate obama promised not to raise our taxes by one dime for people making less than $250,000 a year. but you saw -- and i approve of that comment. [cheers and applause] you know, his cap and trade program just demolished that promise. the obama team has secretly calculated the cost of that plan. it would cost the average american family $1,761 a year. the equivalent to a 15% income tax hike. it would kill jobs in this country. and because it simply moves greenhouse gas emitters to a country like china it wouldn't

do anything about climate change. i think they've been confusing global warming with the heat they've been taking at the town halls. [cheers and applause] i think we can probably all agree that it's a good idea to improve and reform health care. healthier americans make a stronger nation. insurance companies shouldn't drop people when they get sick. we need to help people with preexisting conditions. i think insurance should be affordable and portable. take it with you if you change jobs or move. republicans have proposed several health care reform bills. i hope you've seen a number of them. i as a republican worked very hard to reform health care in our own state. not every feature was perfect. but it does teach this important lesson. you can get everyone insured without breaking the bank and without a government option. there is no government option in my massachusetts reform.

the right answer for health care is not more government, it is less government. [applause] now, you heard the president the other night. he said he wants a public option government insurance program to give people greater choice. what he doesn't say is that there are already more than 1,000 insurance companies in this country. he says he wants a public option so that he won't have the burden of corporate profits. but what he doesn't tell you is that there are plenty of major insurance companies, some of the very largest in this country, that are not for profit. he says he would be satisfied with co-ops. but what he doesn't tell you is that there are already co-ops. and there's no legislation needed to create more of them. what he won't say is what he really wants. a public option that over time

becomes the only option. and if he gets what he wants, we know exactly where it would inevitably lead. to a massive timet with enormous liability to more borrowing and the denial of care and rationing just as they experienced in europe. and to the creation of dozens of government bureaucracies that reach into every hospital, every doctor's office and every home. thanks to millions of americans who stepped up in town halls and tea parties across this country, he is not going to get his way. [applause] the democrats call those folks a mob.

crazy. trash. even worse. i call them patriots. thanks for their voice. i for one was not unhappy that the president chose to address our school children. the heritage foundation in a january let tore the president reminded him that as president he is in a unique position to help our children keep from making a critical and life altering mistake. and that is having children before they're married. 40% of our american kids born today are born out of wedlock. of course, there are a number of wonderful single parents who do a terrific job, heroic job in raising their kids under difficult circumstances. but for the nation as a whole, we raise a stronger generation when a child is raised by a mother and a father. [applause]

a strong america also depends on a strong defense. our rivals in the world are pursuing descience and purposes very different than ours. we should never cut corners in funding and equiping the military and intelligence service that is defend our country. more than 150,000 of our fellow citizens in uniform are still deployed in theaters of war. nothing on the agenda that president or congress should come before the needs of our troops. and the absolutely necessity of o their victory. in the face of iran's rush to become a nuclear power, the president's decision this week to walk away from our commitment to missile defense in europe is alarming and dangerous. [applause]

his friends say that iran isn't as close to becoming a nuclear threat as they once thought it was. how can they possibly know that? they say that this is a token of good will to get russia to be more supportive of sanctions against iran. but you know the first rule of negotiation is this. only give something up when you get something in return. from israel to honduras to the check republic, to poland, it's time the president treated our friends better than he treats our foes. [applause] you know, we need to encourage the pro-defense members of congress. democrats and republicans alike, to hold firm and to make the case for a milt they is

second to none. those pro-defense congressmen and senators may seem a little outnumbered right now but they shouldn't lose hope because we're going to send them some reinforcement in next year's elections. [applause] you know, we've now gone eight years and eight days without being hit again at home by a terror attack. over on the left they want very hard for us to believe that this fact has nothing to do whatsoever with the intensive interrogation of terrorists. you could listen all day long to their rants and never hear that obvious connection. and the administration plays right along. they're now talking about actually prosecuting the very intelligence officers who protected us by asking questions and getting answers. those intelligence officers don't deserve to be hounded and elect turd by the left.

they deserve the respect of americans, starting with the commarned in chief -- commander-in-chief. [cheers and applause] we're indeed at a critical time in our nation's history we can't lose faith and the values and virttus that make the american way of life possible. we can't allow big government activists exploit the crisis that they unknowingly enabled. for if good sense of the american people. there's something else that should concern us. when the federal government expands, when government is trying to take over health care buy car companies, bail out banks and giving half the white house staff the title of czar, we have every good reason to be alarmed and to speak our mind.

[applause] the current economic crisis was of course the result of many failures. important guard rails were allowed to collapse, leaving a lot of americans unprotected from the dissent of the financial and job markets. the last thing we need right now is a collapse of even more guard rails that would leave us unprotected from the overreach of government. now, let me make a prediction. for our cause, and for all of those who speak for this cause without apology, we're about to see a come back. voters in new jersey have just about had it with the high taxers in their state and just across the river the signs are good that we're about to see a low tax, pro-growth, pro-life governor of virginia. [cheers and applause]

of course, nothing is certain in politics but we can be certain about this. our belief in the greatness of america and our dedication to keeping this nation strong are needed today as much as they have ever been needed in our glorious past. i don't deny that america's challenges are great or that overcoming them is going to require the best that we have to give. but i know that in times of difficulty we always bring out the essential character of our fellow citizens. when i was a kid, my dad used to say to me that the pursuit of the difficult makes people strong. well, the pursuit of the difficult will make america stronger. we welcome the challenge. it will call on us once again to draw on the incredible resilience, ingenuity and faith of the free men and women of the united states. we don't get to choose the tests and the trials that are ahead. but we are entirely free, you and i, to choose how we're going to meet those tests.

and we'll meet them as conservatives have done before. we'll find strength in each other and we'll answer our opponents with good will and honest words. and we will go forward committed to our ideals, confident of victories to come and certain that god does indeed bless america. thank you so much. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you, governor romney. and thank you, ladies and gentlemen. we're about to dismiss you now for lunch. i do need to make a couple of quick announcements. there is a replacement of a breakout session. the 3:15 breakout session wait no more has been changed. it will be replaced with true

tolerance countering the homosexual agenda in public schools. and that is in congressional room b. all right, you still have until 1:00 to enter our straw pole and we'll be announcing those results late they are afternoon. we have book signings going on in the diplomat foyer. please remember to turn in your forms. and also you still have time for our texting context. >> coverage just heard from former governor mitt romney wrapping up his remarks here. if you missed any of his comments, you will get a second chance to see it tonight along with other speeches from the summit beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. today on america and the courts, u.s. solicitor general cagen.

at 7:00 p.m. eastern. sunday on c-span, a forum with former president jimmy carter at the carter center in atlanta. he and his wife talk about the center's current health and foreign policy programs and take questions from the audience. >> what are your thoughts regarding the recent outburst by representative joe wilson of south carolina during president obama's recent address to the joint session of congress? dourl a similar event in your political career? >> i'm going to be frank with you all. i think it's based on racism. there's an inherent -- [applause] there is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an african american ought not to be president. and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were

white. and this has permyated politics ever since i've been involved in it back in the 1960s. not only in the south, but also in many places throughout the nation. >> we'll show you that entire event with former president carter sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. coming up next, a senate hearing on the war in afghanistan. witnesses include former u.s. ambassador to pakistan and iraq ryan crocker. john kerry of massachusetts chairs. >> the hearing will come to

order. originally this hearing had been set for 10:00 today. it is our hope that somewhere around 10:00 we will have a quorum so that the foreign relation committee can conduct its business meeting. we have some nominations and business to report out. so i hope colleagues and their staffs particularly can ensure that if we aim for 10:00 it can be a very, very minimalist requirement on everybody's time. meanwhile, we will go into the substance of today's hearing, the second in a series of hearings that we're going to have with respect to afghanistan. yesterday was the first hearing. we heard three compelling cases, each of them making strong arguments individually for how america should proceed and the prescriptions ranged from dramatically reducing the footprint to expanding our commitment of troops and money to a level that would basically constitute pretty significant

nation bileding. john naugle, a co-author of the military's counter insurgency manual worked very closely with general petraeus argued that victory could require as many as, according to the field manual for standard counter insurgency operations, 600,000 troops. and a commitment of at least five years. the bulk of those troops, up to 400,000, would eventually be afghan, but it was clear and stated that u.s. forces would be needed for years as trainers, as combat mentors, in order to fill the security gap before the afghans were able to take over. steven biddle argued that the efforts of a stepped-up campaign outweighed the costs but that it was a very close call. he acknowledged both the need for more troops and the genuine possibility of failure even if we do up the ante. in his view, there could be no effective counter terrorism

without an effective counter insurgesy and he agreed with dr. naugle to help prevent the destablization of the country -- of pakistan. finally, rory stewart challenged key assumptions of the administration's policy. instead of escalation, he recommended that we maintain a small counter terrorism capacity to deny a safe haven to al qaeda and continue providing development aid on a low key but long term basis. he argued that we need not physically block al qaeda from returning to afghanistan, we just have to keep afghanistan from providing al qaeda with the security that they couldn't get in pakistan. , sow malia, yemen, or elsewhere. he argued that pakistan would stand or fall on its own, regardless of events across the border. listening to these distinguished experts argue their cases and listening to the important an i think very

penetrating questions of my colleagues, it was obvious that there are fundamental disagreements that need to be resolved in order to try to build a consensus around the policy for going forward in afghanistan. despite the differences, i believe there are some central truths on which we can all agree. first, we need a winning civilian strategy. i've said repeatedly that we will not force the surrender of the taliban by military force alone. therefore, any strategy that lacks a strong civilian component is doomed. second, our gratest national priority here is to ensure that afghanistan does not destabilize pakistan. as we debate how to succeed in afghanistan, we must evaluate the impact of every decision on our beleaguerd alies in islam bad. but history tells us that the challenge is not only from the east. afghanistan shares a 1,300 mile northern border with central

asian countries that have suffered from instability themselves. inche and russia have also vested interested in afghanistan. unless we find common ground with them, i would think that we will continue competing instead of cooperating. ground with them, i would think that we will continue third, we need to counter the growing narcotics problem. to counter the growing narcotics problem. as we described in a committee report released last month, senior military and civilian officials believe it is extremely difficult to defeat the taliban and establish good government without disrupting afghanistan's opium trade. afghanistan supplies more than 90% of the world's heroin and generates $3 billion a year in profits, money that helps to finance the taliban and other militant groups. we need to be realistic and pragmatic

pragmatic. unlike iraq, afghanistan is not a reconstruction project, but a construction project. the project in one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world. we have to come up with concrete goals and be clear about what and how much we are prepared to do to achieve them. i might add, there may well be a fourth thing on which we can agree and that is that the problem of governance may even be in fact more serious than the challenge of the tall ban. and many people suggest and i am not sure it isn't now becoming more clear that the absence of governance, the inadequacy of governance and the corruption of governance in the government of afghanistan is one of the most demoralizing and defeating components that may drive people to the taliban and elsewhere and that is something we must address. today we welcome four witnesses who will take us deeper into the

debate by sharing their ideas for what should change on the ground in order to succeed in afghanistan. i might say that three of them have traveled a very long distance, and we are very, very ap preeshative. the honorable ambassador ryan crocker flew from the west coast just to be here for this, and general kradic drove all of the way up from north carolina to be here and i'm not sure if everybody else has travelled the range of distance, but we are enormously pleased for everybody to be here. we will hear from general kradic first. he was the supreme commander allied in europe until a month ago. he will be followed by ambassador ryan kradic from afghanistan and istanbul, and probably few people have a better understanding than dr. kradic. and also the coauthor of "fixing failed states" and "fixing

afghanistan" will discuss her strategy for a successful government. and also the well known author of "kite runner" and a 1,000 splendid sons who has just returned from after againston for a special envoy. we appreciate all of you being here. senator lugar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. since obama's inauguration, his administration has taken steps to reorder american policies. the president identified the war in afghanistan as his administration's highest combat priority and thus shifted resources and emphasis from iraq to afghanistan and "operation enduring freedom." he argued that the united states' effort in afghanistan had been neglected in favor of the intervention in iraq. president obama made an important effort to sustain continuity of command and

control of our defense department at the highest levels by retaining an effective and sustaining secretary defense and retaining general petraeus to commander of central command where he heads the military efforts across the region. both men have identified civil military coordination as essential for progress toward u.s. goals in the region. at a more operational level, president obama named ambassador r is effort is joined by admiral mike mullen. beyond his responsibility for eebshurg the fitness and readiness of our fighting forces he is closely engaged in the delicate and essential security discussions across south eesha and as many visits

to pakistan, india, and afghanistan, admiral mullen has worked to forbling a closer, more confident relationship between our government and each of theirs. these leaders are seized of our commitments to afghanistan and pakistan and strengthening the foundations for stability. they along with secretary of state clinton, national security james jones, and vice president biden are together in the final stages of a crucial review of our strategies and policies in the region. 'rrdhrr but the president is the commander in chief. he is the one who will m but the president is the commarned in chief. it is hoped he will present a successful strategy. such an integrated strategy is yet to be unveiled. despite the many high and low level reviews and none has been

described by the president with the force and conviction necessary to persuade the american people to endorse what will likely be a much longer, albeit necessary commitment to achieve stability in the region. is likely going to be a much longer and albeit necessary commitment to achieve stability in the region. as he formulates his new strategy, i strongly urge the president to make a concerted effort to work personally with the congress which will control the purse strings for our endeavors in the region. we in congress have heard of general outlines of an approach to the region, highlighted by the president and his senior advisers in march of this year. namely, that we intend to quote disrupt, dismantle and defeat, end of quote, al qaeda and their allies. we have also received extensive requests and notifications through several supplemental

appropriations and the fiscal year 2010 budget requests identifying billions of dollars in assistance and operations funding for afghanistan and the region. but many questions have s havs n surrounding troop levels and contractor roles and behavior, and considering the important role of development for the region, i am troubled that there is still no usaid administrator. as a member of this committee and the agriculture committee, i am concerned about reports that $170 million in u.s. aid money will be transferred to the department of agriculture to develop an expeditionary cultural capacity for afghanistan. this, i believe, is normally the job of the u.s. aid. and for the moment, the committee has been informed that general mcchrystal's suggestions for a future strategy and

tactics are being studied in the administration. we are led to believe that after the administration has studied the mcchrystal report for an indefinite period of time, the general may suggest appropriate troop levels for the united states and our major allies necessary to achieve the administration's final decision on objectives. the committee hearings this week offered the administration an opportunity to explain the challenges and difficult decisions to be made after nearly a year of study. invitations were issued, but they were declined. thus, we have turned today to key actors and former officials experienced in government, war zones in afghanistan and govern zones in afghanistan and the region to provide their insights and recommendations. we are deeply grateful they have accepted our invitation to present timely information to our committee and all americans

on an extensively-covered public forum. i hope that the administration will soon decide on the time for its views to reach the american people. in any event, it is critical that the full force and voice of the president lead the discussion around this national strategic priority with so many american lives and hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. only he can lay the foundation that will gain the confidence of congress and our soldiers, our development experts, our diplomats and our partners. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator luger. we are going to begin with general craddock and run right along the table. your full testimony will be placed into the record as read in full. if you could summarize approximately in five minutes, would be helpful, then we could have more time for discussion.

>> we need five more senators for the quorum. thank you, general. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i think the focus on afghanistan is important, timely and essential. i will focus my short opening remarks in that area. before exploring the counternarcotics challenge, the nato commitment to afghanistan as an alliance is strong. i would point out the commitment differs among individual nato members. continued united states leadership in this mission is essential to both deepen the level of support of nato and to ensure continued participation of all alliance members. with regard to the issue of counternarcotics afghanistan, may i preface by comments with the understanding my perspective is from my last assignment on active duty with the united states armed forces, that of supreme allied commander of

europe and nato perspective. in october 2006, nato assumed responsibility for security for the entire country of afghanistan. the authority to do so was provided to the supreme allied commander by the north atlantic council. the means of granting that authority was through the council's approval of the nato military operations plan for afghanistan. the strategic operation of this plan contains specific instructions to all subordinary nant commands responsible for conducting operations in afghanistan concerning counternarcotics operations. specifically, nato forces were not to conduct counternarcotics operations or activities to include eradication of poppy crops. what was submitted was support to the afghan forces, support in terms of information, intelligence, logistics support and medical support for afghan counternarcotics forces. all upon request by those

forces. in february 2007, the current intelligence assessments, discussions with afghan authorities and consultations with the united kingdom and united states counternarcotics authorities all combined to establish a strong link between the narcotics traffickers and afghan insurgents, particularly the taliban. a growing body of evidence indicated this was being generated by the narcotics industry in afghanistan. u.n. experts estimated upwards of $200 million of narcotic dollars going into their coffers. that is when i requested more forces. our assessment was reducing the money available to insurgents would make it more difficult to hire soldiers, pay bombs for the ied makers and buy weapons and

material, all essential in reducing the level of violence and prefding enhanced security. it was not until november of 2008, some 18 months later, that nato via a defense ministerial meeting approved these additional authorities. the ministers concluded preponderance of evidence to that date supported the assessments that the narko-traffickers were provided support to the insurgency. subsequent guidance and orders were issued and nato forces began using these expanded authorities. as of mid june this year, 25 counternarcotics operations have been conducted by nato forces alone or in conjunction with afghan counternarcotic forces with favorable results. many processing facilities, laboratories have been destroyed, precursor material destroyed, opium paste and refined heroin confiscated. much more remains to be done. first and foremost, nato itaf forces must continue to conduct

operations against the facilities and facilitators to reduce not just the money available, but with the secondary effect of reducing the level of corruption countrywide. secondly, nato and nato-member nations on a bilateral basis must continue to partner and support the development of the afghan security and counternarcotics forces. the end state for this effort are fully competent, capable afghan security forces that minimize the impact of narcotics on the afghan society. thank you for this opportunity to appear before this committee. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. ambassador crocker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator luger, members of the committee, it's an honor to be before you today. i have had that honor a number of occasions in the past as a witness for the administration. today is the first time i can honestly say that in addition to it being an honor, it's also a pleasure.

mr. chairman, afghanistan is a critical national security interest for the united states for the region and for the international community. general craddock addressed some of the nato perspective. i would comment on the regional perspective, focusing particularly on pakistan where i was ambassador from 2004 to 2007, and iran where i was involved in direct discussions with the iranians on afghanistan from 2001 to 2003. mr. chairman, as you know so well, our relationship with pakistan is vital for our nation's national security, as well as for stability in afghanistan. we were closely allied with pakistan in the effort to force the soviets out of afghanistan in the 1980s, but once the

soviets were out, so were we. pakistan went from being the most allied of allies to being a sanction sanction sanctioned parhia. we have an urgent need to build a stable, sustained relationship with pakistan, and mr. chairman, you, senator lugar and this committee have shown the way through your sponsorship of the enhanced partnership with pakistan act. this is precisely the type of long-term undertaking both our nations need. pakistan today faces an interrelated set of insurgencies. kashmir militants to the east, kwid kwid and taliban to the west and internal insurgency that is pakistan's insurgency.

much of this is pakistan's own making, but there is a pakistani narrative that says in the case in the support for the taliban they had no choice after we withdrew in the 1990s. i came to know a large number of political and mainstream political officers. none share the taliban's vision for pakis we need prospects for our relationship. we need to learn from our past experience and build for a better future, and your legislation, mr. chairman, shows us all the way. afghanistan's western neighbor iran poses a very different set of challenges. the multiple differences between the united states and iran need no elaboration from me. on afghanistan, however, we have

at times found room for cooperation. in the wake of 9/11, when i sat down with iranians under u.n. auspices, i found them fully supportive of u.s. military action to bring down the taliban. u.s. slar irani agreement at the afghan interim authority was at the core of this bonne conference. after i opened our embassy in kabul in 2002, we discussed with iranians ways to strengthen the interim administration and reduce the power of war lords. the iranians hedged their bets, however, also providing sanctuary for al qaeda figures later implicated in attacks in the arabian peninsula that brought to an effective end that dialogue with iran. mr. chairman, the administration has state the its willingness to

engage in a dialogue with the iranians. i think this is a positive step. i certainly support it. i hope afghanistan will be on the agenda, that the iranians will take a strategic look at their own interests because i think those interests also lie in a stable afghanistan. mr. chairman, i would offer just a couple of thoughts based on my experience in iraq. and one must be careful, as you know, not to draw too many parallels. construction in afghanistan, reconstruction in iraq, i think, is a very good point. it is going to be very hard in afghanistan. that does not mean hopeless. we have very fine people in the fight. general mccrystal, ambassador iken berry in afghanistan, ambassador paterson in pakistan

and my old comrade in baghdad, general petraeus, now overseeing both wars can give americans confidence the right people are in the right place. it is the president that must show the way. when he does, i hope the committee and counterparts from the house will seek from my colleague that irreplaceable perspective, which is the view from the field. the stakes are very high indeed in afghanistan. and, mr. chairman, i think all of us in america are indebted to you and the committee for helping us illuminate these issues. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i don't think i did justice introducing you to the the outstanding service that you provided us in iraq, pakistan and through your career. we are very, very grateful. i know how much value two

presidents had in your advice and we're very grateful to you. ms. lockhart. we are two senators away from an interruption. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to address you. there is now an emerging recognition there is no purely military resolution to the situation in afghanistan and government and development are more important tools. i believe that the establishment of afghan sovereignty by which i mean enabling afghans to exercise self-rule through afghan institutions that can provide their own security governance and revenue-raising capability provides the framework that we need. and it will provide first, a means of stabilizing afghanistan and critically denying space for

the taliban who senator kerry recognized, throughout their strength primarily from the weakness of afghan institutions. secondly, it provides basis for an honorable exit for american forces and presence on the ground or a transition strategy, if we don't want to call it an exit strategy. and third, it demonstrates to the afghan population that the u.s. and allied presence is not an occupation. it's not an occupation at all, norris this an open-ended occupation. the military have now articulated a clear strategy for building up the afghan security forces in protecting the population. i believe we now need a similar articulation for strategy and development that matches one the military has put forward in rigor and in detail. first, i would like to reflect on the mistakes made. i think over the last years we have not had a clear strategy for the civilian component of governance and development.

afghan institutions have been underresourced. when i was on the ground in afghanistan between 2001 and 2005, the first afghan budget for a civil service that had 240,000 civil servants in 2002, was the level of $20 million. this is enough to pay fuel for a month, but not to pay the doctors even with salaries of $50 a month. much activity from the aid system has been counterproductive. the provision of billions of dollars with very little accountability, particularly to u.n. agencies and ntos, not to mention the great work many agencies have done. as the perspective of an afghan citizen with no hope for a job or education, there has been little but to sign up with the taliban in many parts of the country. moving forward, i think the first question to address is what does good governance look like? the first component is certainly security. building up the afghan national

army, the police force, afghan intelligence services and justice institutions, law enforcement institutions. but security institutions alone won't make an afghan government capable of exercising authority and maintaining stability in the country that will allow the jordan. it requires three other components. the first of these is rule of law. the decision-making institutions across the cabinet and across the levels of afghan governance. the capital city kabul at province levels, district levels, municipalities and villages. the second component is public finance. we hear lots about corruption and i think we need to take a clear-headed look at the other side of that coin. how do we build the systems of accountability in revenue-raising and public expenditure that will allow afghanistan to raise its own revenue and expend its own resources on its institutions for the decades to come?

the third component is basic services. we are not talking here about halla or switzerland, but the basic services at the village level in irrigation to allow for agriculture livelihood, health and education, that would allow afghans to live life with dignity. this will require investment in education, another critical area has been to educate afghans up to the age of 11. if we are only educated to the age of 11, we will not have an economy capable of being self-serving. afghan is corrupt full of war lords. there was a reasonable standard of governance in the middle decades of the 20th century. when i arrived in kabul, there were 240,000 civil servants in place across the country, administering the country fairly

well. i think the culture of corruption has been allowed to fester in recent decades, but is not of the culture. finally, there was a series of successes between 2001 and 2005 where a political framework articulated through bonds and allows for a number of governance initiatives to be successful. most notably the creation of the afghan national army from scratch. and a number of national programs, including the national solidarity program that saw block runs allow the country that allows villages to maintain their own affairs. we have pessimism that there is a legacy of decades of war and lost generation. corruption was allowed to set in at the heart of government's institutions. back in 2004, the group of us who are assisting the government realized it was probably inevitable that this corruption would continue to fester and allow the country to fall back to the taliban. i don't think this was inevitable and i don't think it's too late to put it right.

i'll conclude with short reflections on the emerging strategy. i think we can be encouraged to see that there is a strategy emerging from kabul under the leadership of ambassador iken berry and his excellent team in coordination with general mccrystal to put in place a strategy that will support the creation of the adequate and necessary afghan institutions. i think this is balanced with understanding that we can't just focus on state institutions, we must also allow the space for afghan civil society to hold that government accountable, and invest in market institutions to create, in the short term, jobs that will pull people away from illicit activities, and over the medium term, lay the basis for an economy that will make afghanistan self-sufficient. i think we face two immediate challenges. very sadly, the elections recently held did not renew the

government settlement in the country. this is tragic, i think, because it was avoidable. i do think some questions need to be asked of the way that the election was managed by the u.n. so that those mistakes can be avoided in future in afghanistan and in other countries. we now face a paradox because the strategy requires that to be a host nation government with a vision that the people can sign up to. and that government is not yet in place. i think we have different options for how a government that is good enough can be put in place. once that political settlement is in place that will allow for the process of reconciliation with groups across the country, then i think the second key need is to articulate the governance and development strategy that is necessary. it is possible to put it in place, then it must be resourced with the adequate resources that have been so sorely missing the last few years. thank you.

>> doctor, thank you very much for being with us and sharing. you are very important and on the ground vision here and we appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, on behalf of the office of the united nations high commission of the refugees, i would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before you and to offer my perspectives and concerns on the afghan refugee situation and the overall conditions in afghanistan. in a way of background, unhcr currently has 12 offices ip side afghanistan, and had a presence inside afghanistan since the late 1980s and maintained an office in afghanistan during the taliban rule in the 1990s. at the peak of the afghan displacement crisis in the mid 1990s, some 8 million afghans

fled home and went to neighboring pakistan and iran. >> can i interrupt you for a moment? i want to take advantage of the fact we have a forum in the committee here. i promised some colleagues we would make that part of the meeting brief. if the record could perhaps not reflect the interruption, we'll do that. we'll move to business meeting and we'll consider six nominees. robert horvax, and to be the u.s. alternate governor to several international and financial institutions, international bank reconstruction development for a term of five years, united states alternate governor of the interdevelopment bank for a term of five years, united states

alternate government for the african bank in a term of five years. united states alternate government of the african-american fund, united states alternate government of the asian development bank and united states alternate government of the european bank for reconstruction and development. david jacobson to be ambassador to canada. barry white to be ambassador of norway. lee feinstein to be ambassador of poland. i'm unaware of any request for a roll call vote. >> robert hormatz? >> that statement will be placed in the record. adoption moved. is there a second? second. all those in favor say aye. oppose, nay. the nominees are approved from the committee and will be reported to the floor. any further business?

would you please pick up where you left off? >> certainly. after the fall of the taliban in 2001, unhcr ban the largest repatriation in the history of the agency, since 2002 some 5 million afghans. we also have offices in iran and pakistan to assist 2.6 million afghan refugees who have yet to return home. i came back yesterday from a five-day trip to afghanistan where i met with ordinary afghans, where i met with refugees, displaced people, aide workers and officials. i'll focus my comments first on the needs of the afghan refugees, particularly those who recently returned to afghanistan from neighboring countries. then on needs of the afghan people in general. on the issue of refugees, some have reintegrated successfully and resumed relatively settled

lives. many i met continue to struggle. it has been a major challenge, to say the least, for many of the returnees to restart their lives in a country where basic services collapsed. some of the returnees he met last week lived in squalid abandoned public buildings other in tents or in dry, remote and inaccessible areas. they complained to me the lack of basic services like water, food, schools, clinics and most importantly, jobs. some had a great fear of the coming winter. given these difficult realities, maybe it's not surprising that 2.6 million afghans still live in exile and iran and pakistan. 80% of them lived there more than two decades and half of them were born there. after 30 years of living in exile and giving the difficult conditions inside afghanistan and the state's law absorption capacity, many wish never to

come home. it is important to remember return and reintegration should be made as possible for refugees. conditions inside afghanistan have to be remedied so the environment inside the country is more conducive for the social and economic well-being of refugees. that means afghan authorities in partnership with the international community have to work on critical factors like security, employment opportunity, access to land, water, shelter, education and health facilities in order for repatriationo@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r in legal, physical, and material protection. as part of the initial reintegration process, we provide shelter, water, transport and family grants. but returning ref gees need more. they need security, stability, economic and social opportunities. and though we can certainly act

as a partner and as an advocate for these needs, it connot provide them and has to rely on partners to create the socio economic opportunities that are required for return. so to that end, donor support and continued engagement of the international community is indispensible. o that end, donor support and continued engagement of international community is indispensable. on a broader front, let me say afghanistan has been in a state of conflict almost 30 years. the country and its population make huge sacrifices during the soviet occupation. every family i met and spoke to has been touched by tragedy. tragedy on a scale few of us here can imagine. many afghans believe the final and violent chapter of the cold war was inked with their blood. today my impression is that afghanistan faces yet another critical and pivotal moment in its recent, unstable history. i believe there is an

opportunity in afghanistan, an opportunity to build on the promises that have been made since 2002. despite the sobering reality, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact there has been progress. 6 million children are enrolled in 9,000 schools around the country. afghans have greater access to the health sector. millions of kids have been vaccinated. commerce and enterprise inside kabul are increased. infrastructure is booming and technology, especially telecommunication appears poised to leaf frog afghan development. there is free press and greater personal freedom. but progress hasn't been fast enough or deep enough. all of us would like to see it reach more afghans. there are many challenges that can undermine the progress we have seen. the decline in refugee repatriation this year is an indicator that security remains a major obstacle and that the economy has not grown quickly enough, especially in rural areas. afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world. poverty is the number one killer in afghanistan.

average life expectancy is one of the lowest in the world. 25,000 plus women die every year during child birth. that's more deaths than those caused by all the suicide bombs, ieds and air strikes combined. historically, there is no tradition of extremism in afghanistan, poverty can make people, especially unemployed, aimless, young people more vulnerable to exploitations by extremist groups. military intervention is only part of it. counterinsurgency has to include social and economic intervention, as well. when people have a roof over their head, food on the table and a school to send their kids to, they are less likely to be influenced by extremist voices. these are huge challenges to be addressed. during my visit, all the afghans i encountered expressed a concern about the future and some disappointment about the present. they clearly expected more from their government, but none of them wanted to go back to the past. i see no reason why we should allow ourselves to be defeatists

and let the country slide back toward the struggled past. afghan people don't want the moon. we should secure the modest levels of improvement in people's lives that will earn us such good will and make such a difference in afghan's stability. there are opportunities to be seized. if all parties accept the responsibilities, that is first and foremost with the of a gans themselves. they have to do their part. this is their country, after all. afghan leaders have to acknowledge that their people expect more from them and rightfully so. they have to restore people's faith in governmental institutions. i stress that the international committee for its part must maintain its continued support for the afghan people and it has to be patient. i'm aware of the current debate of the afghan war and feel deeply for families that lost loved ones in afghanistan. of a gans are grateful for their service and sacrifice. afghans are not an ungrateful

people. let's not let the sacrifices of our service people, men and women, be in vain. let's be patient. let's consider no country in history has been able to establish a functioning state, a perform yag government, a strong economy and a stable society in just a handful of years. of a gans are a proud people and they don't want to be a source of regional and international instability. they don't want to be known for producing refugees and economic migrants around the world. they want no more and no less than other people in other developing countries want for their children and themselves. the basic essentials can be provided, housing, education and health care, i believe this closure can be brought to this dark chapter of this country's recent history. mr. chairman, i again appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and i'm happy to answer any questions you or members of the committee may have. thank you very much. >> thank you, very much. there are a lot of questions that flow out of your testimonies. i'm confident my colleagues here

will pursue them. what is interesting to me is, i was sitting here thinking, i was listening to your testimony. both of you describing, obviously, an urgent humanitarian need, an urgent challenge in terms of nation building, state building, challenge of governance. on the other hand, we had troops on the ground and we have been in afghanistan for eight years now. we are nearing the eight-year anniversary right now. the test for us in terms of policy, if you took away the al qaeda and you took away the attacks, there would be a challenge to us as to what our foreign policy aid program ought to be and the level of assistance we might give are. right now, our challenge is also to try to figure out what the level of military involvement, troop involvement ought to be. indeed, what our security

interests are and how they can be furthered with respect to afghanistan. president of the united states has defined the mission in a more limited fashion, really, by saying that our goal is to take on al qaeda, dismantle them and/or eliminate them and to prevent them from having a safe haven and a sanctuary from which they can attack the united states, and to prevent the destabilization of pakistan, where we have an even larger and more vital interest. so the test for us here, as we think about our policy going forward, and we need to ask you questions about the nation building and the relationship of it to those interests. the key here is to try to hone in, i think, on those interests and how we best serve them. one of the essential questions we need to get at, i think, ambassador crocker, you could perhaps help us do that, is sort

of, you know, while you were there for a period of time, the pakistanis proved themselves capable of living comfortably. and pakistan's capacity to govern didn't threaten them. today that has changed because of the presence of al qaeda and other things. the question for us, and i want to ask you to begin here is, help us to understand, define for us what the real impact of the taliban is today and might be on the stability of pakistan? and would it, in fact, be an exestential problem if taliban

took over today? >> as you rightly point out, we've seen a revolution. during the 1990s, pakistan did, indeed, work out a modus operandi with a taliban-led government in afghanistan, and had relative stability at home, but that has changed. we have seen the evidence. you pointed hakani network, the efforts of the now late betolla massoud, developments in the swat valley. we've seen an increasing militancy in pakistan not just restricted to the border areas, that is growing to the point where, for many pakistanis, it does raise at least the question of an existential threat. i think there are other questions in pakistan, again, about our staying power that

still cause hedging of bets there. the ultimate nightmare in pakistan would be to see us once again decide we're done, we're done in afghanistan and we're done in pakistan a repeat of the 1990s, leaving them with what, by that point, may be a truly dangerous enemy. >> may i just interrupt you for a moment there? let me make it clear from my point of view, senator lugar's point of view and the committee. there is no talk here and i don't want anybody beginning to think there is a contemplation of not supporting pakistan. what the question begs is this, is to what degree is

afghanistan, in fact, left to its own devices or with a lesser foot print at jeopardy? our interests, in fact, challenged, if we had a different approach to afghanistan? >> i think they would be challenged. simply put, mr. chairman, i see a reciprocity here. i don't think stability can be brought to afghanistan without pakistan also stabilizing. i don't think it can maintain its militancy if that militancy succeeds in afghanistan. we know the history of the juron line, its artificial neighbor. there are more pashtuns in afghanistan than in pakistan.

a military si will be severely destabilizing for pakistan. >> is there any degree -- yesterday it was suggested by rory stewart that perhaps the presence of troops and manner of the mission in afghanistan is to some degree destabilizing pakistan, that it's adding to the capacity, coupled with the corruption of the governance, it's adding to this ability of the taliban to find recruits. >> i left pakistan in 2007. as of that time, i knew of no senior pakistani figure, military or civilian who was advocating a u.s. withdrawal from pakistan. there was criticism how well we

were prosecuting the mission, but it was taken as a given. my understanding was we needed to stay engaged there. >> i'm not suggesting, i think a plain old withdrawal would be disastrous on a number of different fronts. what we are trying to figure out is how to accomplish the mission what level of mix of military and governance improvement and nation building, et cetera, is appropriate? i think some people are very fearful that right now there is sort of this nondescript, loosey-goosey, we have to do this, do this and that, and we heard yesterday that to properly affect a counterinsurgency which has grown, the taliban are now in control of 37% of country

whereas a year ago they are in control of 20%. that growth has to make you pause and say, okay, you know, the western part, the northern part haven't yet reached it, but we heard fears expressed that that may happen. therefore, to be successful, you have to begin to think about what's the real troop ratio that you need to provide the security for adequate counterinsurgency? and counterinsurgency we heard yesterday is a distinctly different mission from counterterrorism. the mission as i understood it from the president is more counterterrorism in afghanistan than stabilization with respect to pakistan. so we've got to figure out if we are in sort of, is there a automatic and unavoidable mission here or an inadvertent mission creep here or something in our automatic response to how we protect pakistan that requires us to sort of feel you

have to do the counterinsurgency? that's, i think, the biggest tension here. what level of counterinsurgency do you need to support the counterterrorism effort and the destabilization piece? senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to explore for a moment this thought the chairman has mentioned which came up in our hearing yesterday that essentially one witness said the major reason why we ought to have stability in afghanistan is have stability in afghanistan is to help@@@@@@#aá@ @

. . or other instruments that change a great deal. this is a turnaround from most of our discussions of afghanistan. we looked at afghanistan in terms of how villages could become more sufficient, however culture might rise, how the drug abuse might be curtailed. how more children could go to school and women's rights would be fostered. that has been the nature of many of this. to turn things around in afghanistan is important strategically because of pakistan is a different twist. furthermore, there have been discussions in the press even today that one of the problems maybe it stability in

afghanistan, if the people do not accept president karzai as their leader. it is not far-fetched, given the problem in iran, the regime is still there but there have been people in the street. people continue to go into the street. there is a situation within our government as we want to have a dialogue with iran. the question is being with whom? if we reach agreement, how stable given the situation? what i want from each of you is some idea of what is the stability of potential governance at the highest levels, apart from the regional levels of afghanistan? in the event, as europeans are

quoted in the press as saying one-third of the votes for president karzai have been invalid. that is a very president karzai have been invalid. that is a very significant charge. and it suggests the ballots we heard yesterday that have been prepared for a run-off might be used. then others say, you don't understand. the weather is bad. the difficulties conducting an election are not the same in november as they are in the united states. and further more, the whole thing might shift until next year, which somehow we are talking about stability now in afghanistan. and when we were originally talking about how afghanistan helps pakistan remain stable. finally, people are saying pakistan, all things considered, have been stable this past year. despite predictions that the

president might have difficulties after three months, he seems to be sailing along. the one we have to worry about maybe for stability is afghanistan. perhaps the president says okay, his advisors he is talking to down there at the white house, we better hang on for a while before we get into a recommendation of troop levels. get into a national debate with the public opinion in this country. it seems to have a different timeline. and what i'm wondering is, we are not kicking the can down the road in our decision-making. and i might have been hypercritical in my opening statement, but i observed general mcchrystal's report is always going to be there. we discuss it and discuss it, and suddenly we come along after an indefinite period and begin to talk about troop levels.

does anyone have any comment? general kraddock do you have any thoughts of what i have suggested? >> thank you, senator lugar. indeed it's a bit of a conundrum, no doubt. i think senator kerry's opening comments said this is not winnable by military means, absolutely. i have said that for the past several years. the military, the security effort will set the conditions for good enough governance for investment for development for the creation of jobs. as you go about the country, and i also have gone about, it's about clean water, education, a job, electricity. how hard can that be? obviously, takes some security to do that. i think from the security perspective, and this is again a nato perspective, security instability, and there are two fundamental issues there, one is the funding of the insurgency,

whether it be the taliban, whatever the case may be, and that is largely, it's down somewhat from the narcotics business and it has to be addressed and continue to be addressed, and we have to take away the wherewithal and contributions after the value is added, and that is the processing of the raw opium paste to the heroin. >> let me interrupt that point. many allege in addition to the insurgents getting their money, the government is getting the money. that there are two recipients. >> that is in my opening statement. indeed, it fuels the corruption. i know the numbers are down. the latest estimates, a $3 billion industry of which some $1 billion stays in country and $200 million to insurgents. where does the rest go? corruption, private and public. has to be addressed. security will only create the

conditions for what rory stuart says the afghan people are morally bound to do for themselves, which are govern better. >> so that is the basis for our security then? the framework for afghan people to progress? >> i think it is protect the people, put an umbrella, security umbrella around municipalities, around the villages and towns so there can be investment, development, jobs created, and when the people get that, they will push the insurgents out. >> my time is completed. i appreciate that answer. >> thank you, senator lugar. senator feingold? >> thanks, mr. chairman, for holding all these hearings on one of the most important questions facing our nation at this time. we are honored to have all these distinguished witnesses here. these hearings contributed to a much-needed debate regarding our efforts in afghanistan. while there may be disagreement on some issues, one point of consensus that is clearly

emerged, and as the chairman just restated, no one thinks we should abandon afghanistan. u.s. must remain engaged in helping the afghan people resolve the many difficult issues facing their country through diplomatic means and ongoing assistance. however, i do believe we need to examine whether the current military strategy may potentially be counterproductive. i'm concerned our massive military presence may be contributing to instability in the region, and could be unwittingly undermining our chief national security priority, which is, of course, a relentlessly pursuing al qaeda's global network. helping the afghan people build a stable nation for themselves is a long-term goal. we must consider how best to achieve this and whether this require as departure from our current overly military centric approach. >> ambassador crocker? >> admiral mullen and special envoy holbrooke acknowledged the at these hearings is there a danger u.s. military operations

in afghanistan could drive militants into pakistan, and further destabilize that nuclear-armed country. and admiral blair testified no improvement in afghanistan is possible without pakistan taking control of its border areas and improving governance, creating economic and educational opportunities throughout the country. do you agree that the key to preventing the spread of militancy in the afghan/pakistan border region is improved governance of pakistan as opposed to our military operations in afghanistan? >> senator, i would certainly join general craddock and most of the members in the strong view that there is no purely military solution to problems in afghanistan or, indeed, in pakistan. there is a military component to a broader solution. the military, and i apologize

for treading into general craddock's area defining the task is essential at this point. again, mr. chairman, i commend the committee for its focus on this. what is it that we believe needs to be done to bring, as miss lockhart puts it so well, good enough governance to afghanistan, or to allow the afghans that opportunity? that is where long-term stability will lie. the military then becomes a component of that. we need to define our goals, our end states, the milestones along the road to that end state, if you will. and then, but i think only then, can we really talk in a coherent way about force levels and force

composition. >> recent polls have shown the majority of afghans oppose an increase of u.s. troops. do you think there is a danger our disregard for this preference could provoke more militancy? >> i think there is no question that there is a shade of public opinion in afghanistan that is beginning to see the security forces in afghanistan as an occupation. my sense is that compared to a few years ago, there are more people now who view the security forces in a negative light. the civilian casualties have a very, very significant impact on that public opinion. that said, on balance, i think most afghans know that if the security forces were to leave, things would be a whole lot worse. and this is because they understand that the afghan

institutions and the afghan security forces are not strong enough to assure the country and its people of a normal or even semi normal state of existence. at the end of the day, any state has to exercise a monopoly over the legitimate use of force and the greater interest of the civilians at large in the afghan state at this point is not in position to do that. so do the afghans want foreign troops on their land? no. they would prefer there not be. they are independent, sovereign people. do they see it as a necessary thing still today? i think most afghans concede that point. >> as to the question, an increase in troops. >> i think when you speak to afghans on the ground, their fear is not more engagement. their fear is that there will be less engagement. there is a fear of abandonment

in afghanistan. people have very long memory and they remember back to what happened at the end of the soviet invasion where for whatever, as you can put it, we decided it was no longer in our interest who ran afghanistan. at this point i think the afghan concern is with less engagement. that said, afghans have a concern. you take an 18-year-old from this country and send them to afghanistan, and what seems like a rudimentary and poor and unsophisticated society, is in fact, nuanced and sophisticated and the way in which customs, manners, speech, posture is transmitted and understood. there is a steep learning curve for the troops there. i think the current leadership is addressing that. >> of course i have tremendous

respect for your knowledge and views on this. all i can say for the record is that these polling numbers that may or may not be accurate certainly reflect a view against our troops staying there for too long, and certainly against an increase. the heads of state of great britain, germany and france said it was time to discuss metrics and timelines of international activities in afghanistan. better able to build support among american and european people among our efforts in that country? >> thank you, senator. i would definitely agree with that. i don't think the intent is to ever occupy and stay. the key is the development of the afghan national security forces. for the last two years i repeatedly told nato nations the first thing we need are more trainers for the army and police, particularly the police. the issue is more a public

security issue then a national security issue. a competent non-corrupt police force is important. i think what we have to do is lay out a timeline for development of the afghan security forces and hold both international support to that and afghans to that so that we can establish some parameters, milestones and meet them, and then measure of effectiveness. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i think this is an outstanding panel. as we had yesterday and each of you have unique contributions. ambassador crocker, i want to thank you for your tremendous service. i think the testimony that you and general petraeus gave as we looked at a new strategy in iraq was most important.

i think you alluded in your opening testimony how having people from the field here may be the most important thing we can do to ascertain what is the next best that. mr. chairman, i hope that will happen soon. i hope it will happen in the next few weeks. i notice there is resistance for that to happen but i could not agree more. i would also say the themes -- before he moved to our strategic interest in afghanistan, it seems to me there are two themes that are underneath that. one is that we are there, meaning that -- something for us to remember in the future. once we put our flag up in a country, our flag is up and we are very resistant to ever leaving. that is an underlying theme. number two, we are trying to

prove to pakistan and afghanistan we are not fair weather friends. there are two underlying themes that weigh much of what is happening before you get into the strategic interests. happening, before you even get into the strategic interest piece, and that's pretty prevalent in both countries when you are there. let me ask you this, ambassador crocker. what expectations should we have in afghanistan? what worries me to some degree, we had a success in iraq based on a surge. we had a political movement that you helped create with the sunni awakening and getting them working on our side. there have been discussions about doing the same with the taliban. we are obviously talking about additional troops. what are the things we should expect in afghanistan and what are the lessons that are not

necessarily transferrable and those that are? >> thank you, sir. i'm probably the least qualified person in the room to talk about afghanistan and that degree of depth. i would say though, i think there is, as the chairman alluded to earlier, there is a linkage between terror and insurgency. my experience has been that terror can find a nest within a broader insurgency. in other words, i cannot see how, if we define our interests narrowly as eliminating a terrorist threat out of afghanistan, that we can do that with any real degree of assurance without also having a

successful counterinsurgency strategy. and that, again, in my not very well informed view takes us into the range of issues that miss lockhart and dr. huzani touched on. i don't think there is much of a record anywhere in the world of successful counterinsurgencies without good enough government, governance. now, how far does this go? there i am absolutely unable to state, but clearly there is, i think, an obligation for the administration to so state. that review is obviously under way. think the sooner it can be brought to the articulation. what are our goals, why they are important, how they will be

achieved and how the different components link up i think is essential for the american people. >> i think in fairness administration has been rhetorical about this narrow mission to make it sound good. but in essence, all the things ms. lockhart has laid out are components of the counterinsurgency. ms. lockhart, i think you did -- basically you're talking about in some degree state building or nation building i think we all know those are the metrics that have been laid out. we have this very poor country that's been very poor for a long time. there are no resources like there are in iraq. we eke talking about building a health id case, water system, education system, security system, a police system.

what are your thoughts about how we should view our long-term financial commitments. let's face it, on the budget we have now, they couldn't pay for a fraction of the just the police they have there. i'm wondering if you might help us there. i'm not sure if we see any future for resource toss do that there for the midterm. >> certainly as i think we discussed, the civilian governance effort is beingunder resourced and an increase in sources is certainly going to be necessary. i think we probably need to look at two different scenarios for resourcing. one scenario is, if there is a process for rebuilding a legitimate government and a team of afghan leaders in place who can govern responsibly. i think in that scenario we're looking at far fewer external resources than what we needed because afghanistan will move

more rapidly to collecting its own revenue. while afghanistan doesn't have oil, it does have the pe tenl to be raising somewhere between $5 billion to $10 billion in its own revenue because it has very rich mineral resources including copper, gold, lap pass, am thinks, iron. it has the basis for a successful agricultural economy, the largest exporter to fruit an nuts to the region if not the world in the '70s. it has the hard-working population and potential vortex tile production, urban services and a construction industry is certainly there. i think we need to move to put in place an economic strategy. to answer your specific question, i believe we need to be looking at a medium to long-term commitment of resources of probably roughly a doubling of existing resources on the civilian and governance

side. but that, if we move aggressively to raise afghan revenue or enable afghans to raise their own revenue that can take it in the second five years of the decade. >> i'll ask one more brief question. general krad dock, how many al qaeda are there in the world? >> senator, i have no idea. card-carrying idea, i have no idea. sympathizers, financial support, i have no idea. >> card-carrying. >> i don't know. i think one of the reasons it's so difficult in the our search is because there's hierarchy that we would recognize. >> the number 2,000 has been thrown out and people dispute that. the reason i ask the question, it's somewhat rhetorical. our efforts towards al qaeda have now created a situation

where we're involved in two major nation-building, state building efforts. iraq and afghanistan. and it's just a fact. i hope somehow or another we'll figure out a different strategy versus going around the world building states and nations almost out of whole cloth. >> thank you very much senator cork kerr. senator casey? >> thank you. i'll thank the witnesses for the contribution you're making to this discussion and debate. i think we can have a real debate about these policies, and i think it's critical that we do. i want to especially thank general krad dock and ambassador crocker for your service to our country under the most difficult of circumstances. and i wanted to start with you,

ambassador crocker about a conversation that you and i had. this was august of '07, senator durbin and i were were you at that time. we had a dinner meeting. general petraeus was with us as well. i was very critical at the time and still am about the language of washington when we describe the conflict in iraq and also now the conflict in afghanistan. language like victory and defeat, win or lose, which in my judgment is both inaccurate and misleading. i think it's important as we get the policy right on troop levels and on nonmilitary commitments as well that we also get the language right because the american people have -- don't have -- will not and should not have patience for a political debate in washington that doesn't address some answer or

ask and answer some type of questions. at the time you said something i'll never forget. i want to ask you if the language that you used then is still relevant here and what you learn in not just your service in iraq but other service as well. you said at the time -- the words you used to describe success in iraq were two, i recall, sustainable stability. i'd ask you in the context ofdd

new information about what the fbi has uncovered as it proebz a suspected terror plot. the man at the center of the investigation had video of one of the busiest transportation hubs, what else we have learned after his fourth day of questioning. police arrested a suspect in the killing of yale grad student annie le. one thing they still don't have

is a motive. the politics of race, some say it's a major factor in the criticism the president has gotten lately. what does the president himself think about it? >> you're watching hln news and views. i'm susan hendricks. we're learning more about the questioning of najibullah zazi. agents started questioning him this week following raids in new york and denver. sources tell cnn the 24-year-old had a video of new york's grand central terminal, which sees an average of a half million visitors per day along the rail and subway lines and in its shops and restaurants as well. we're hearing he maeld a stunning admission during questioning. jean is in denver with the latest developments. >> reporter: first a couple of new pieces of information about the investigation. a spokeswoman for uhaul says the fbi searched a u-haul location in queens new york last

thursday. u-haul is cooperating in the investigation. in addition, two sources familiar with the investigation tell cnn that najibullah stzazi had in his possession video of grand central station when he traveled to new york shortly before 9/11. that contributed to law ep force. fears that a plot against a transit system might be in the works. zazi was scheduled to come in for a fourth day of questioning by the fbi. however we've been told he is not going to be here today. meanwhile we're getting differing renditions of what happened in the previous three days of questioning. an administration official familiar with the matter tells cnn that zazi did admit to having tiewise al qaeda. however zazi's attorney says no, he did not admit to having ties to al qaeda. and folsom added, he did not attend an al qaeda training camp.

he was allowed to go home last night and resting comfortably according to his attorney. according to the administration official the government was exploring what charges it might be able to bring against him. and said the possibility of a plea bargain was there somewhere down the road. the attorney general of the united states eric holder said in a speech he did not believe there was any imminent danger and fbi agents in new york in denver and in other cities were working round the clock on this matter. an intense manhunt is under way in washington state for an escaped killer who is mentally ill. his name is phillip arnold paul. he walked away from a field trip and state officials are facing intense criticism for allowing paul to be on the field trip to begin with. he was committed to a mental hospital after he admitted to killing an elderdy woman in 198.

he says he killed her because he thought she was a witch. president obama will host the g-20 leaders in pittsburgh next week. in the weekly address, the president said the summit will be a good chance for review of what country has done for the economic downturn. although conditions are stabilizing, that is not enough. >> because of the steps taken by our nations and all nations, we can say we stopped our economic free fall. we know stopping the bleeding isn't nearly enough. our work is far from over. we know we still have a lot to do here at home to build a economy producing jobs for all of those looking for work today. >> republicans are keeping up their full-court press on president obama's health care overhaul plan. in our party's weekly address, sue myrick says the plan would lead to something taxpayers

don't want. >> every family that confronts a serious illness should have access to the highest quality care at the lowest possible cost with no delays. replacing your current health care with a government-run system is not the answer. these so-called health care reform bills have different names. public option. a co-op. a trigger. make no mistake, these are all gateways to government-run health care. >> now the senate finance committee is expected to start voting tuesday on health care proposal. the good news, water service is now back on for residents in suburban baltimore after a massive water main break flooded large parts of a neighborhood there. check it out. we do mean massive, rushing waters submerged cars and flooded 100 basements and caused a road to completely collapse and knock out power to a thousand homes. hundreds of them were still

without power as of this morning. a real mess. it took two hours to get the water shut off. baltimore city officials say the water main break is part of a larger issue it failure infrastructure in many u.s. cities. we may never know wianny le was killed. unless the suspect confesses or it comes out at trial, it is not clear what happened in the school research lab. lab tech raymond clark iii is charged with murdered le. investigators were suspicious about clark, even before le's body was found. after watching surveillance tapes they say he stood out, leaving the building looking disrestaurant and came back to clean and hide lab equipment found to contain blood splatters. randi kaye is covering the case. >> we know he was not a student there, the suspect in the case was not a student at yale. he was a lab technician, low man on the totem pole keeping track

of the animals. she was doing diabetes and cancer research. he reportedly did text her that day having to do with the condition of the cages that her mice were in. but as far as their relationship, it's unclear even at this point, faculty members say they saw each other in the hallway. >> thanks to randy. meanwhile police are still gathering evidence in the case. a car was towed from the motel clark was staying in before his arrest. a state trooper on the scene said it was related to the murder case. clark remains in jail on $3 million bond. authorities searching the property of phillip and nancy garrido have found another bone. they can't say if it's human or not. the couple was charged with kidnapping jaycee dugard 18 years ago. they are searching for possible clues in the disappearance of

two other girls who vanished in the late '80s. they have no evidence tieing them to the other disappearances but say they can't be eliminated as suspects. tlsz a new development in the search for a missing florida girl. local media in florida are reporting authorities are search ag pond in connection to the disappearance of haleigh cummings, they say it is the research of a tip police received in the case but not connected to the arrest of hank across len junior. his sister was with haleigh on the night she is disappeared and now married to haleigh's father. the woman who got her eyesight back thanks to one of her teeth is back in mississippi. there was an excited welcoming home committee back when kay thornton returned from miami. she has nine grandchildren, seven of them born after she lost her sight.

she is first patient to have the procedure in the u.s. doctors fashioned one of her teeth into a graft and transplanted it into her lower eyelid. it holds a prosthetic lens in place and allows her to see foró first time in nine years. she will be back in miami for a checkup in a couple of weeks. we see tv and magazine ads for treatment. can you do anything about cell you light. >> beverly hunt is say dine month moe. she stays in shape. >> it's in the thighs and rear. those are the primary quote unquote sore spots. >> it forms when skins lose elasticity. as many as 90% of women have cell light and according to

howard brooks, thin or heavy, any woman can develop it. >> doesn't matter if the woman is black, white or asian, it can still develop. >> brook says there are a few things to curb the dim ps. quit smoking. also, watch your weight and exercise your legs and but toks. >> that can firm up the skin and decrease the appearance. it's still there but decreases the appearance. >> because it is mostly genetic, he confesses there isn't much to do to get rid of it. there are cosmetic procedures like lasers and deep massage therapy. they are expensive and temporary. for now beverly decided to try laser and deep massage to get rid of her secret. cnn, atlanta. in the shower?zing bo,

you might as well be. you see, their moisturizer sits on top of skin, almost as if you're wearing it. only new dove deep moisture has nutriummoisture, a breakthrough formula with natural moisturizers... that can nourish deep down. it's the most effective natural nourishment ever. new dove deep moisture with nutriummoisture. superior natural nourishment for your skin. kelly saunder's nature valley. ♪ the place that inspires her to go faster... ♪ and slower. ♪ elk mountains, colorado. where's yours? 100% natural nature valley granola bars. the taste nature intended.

your hair mixes with pollen and dust in the air. i get congested. my eyes itch. i have to banish you to the garden. but now with zyrtec-d®, i have the proven allergy relief of zyrtec®, plus a powerful decongestant. i can breathe freer with zyrtec-d®. so, i'll race you to our favorite chair. i might even let you win. zyrtec-d® lets me breathe easier, so i can love the air™. zyrtec-d®. behind the pharmacy counter. no prescription needed.

get 40% off this bonded leather sofa, just $299, with very cool styling and so affordable. at 40% off, just $299. from jennifer. president obama doesn't believe his harshest critics are necessarily motivated by race. questions were raised by that issue following his health care address in which congressman joe wilson screamed out to the president, you lie. in an interview with john king of other sister network cnn, the president says many predecessors came under harsh attack mainly when they were working for change. >> in recent weeks people have raised some pretty serious questions. the big rally in town, signs talking about afro socialist. you lie shouted during a

nationally tell vi national televised address. >> are there people out there who don't like me because of race? i'm sure there are. that's not the overriding issue here. i think there are people who are anti-government. i think that there are -- there's been a longstanding debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes. the things said about fdr are things said similar to me, things said about ronald reagan when he was trying to reverse some of the new deal programs were pretty vicious as well. >> the president fielded similar questions from other networks during a flurry of interviews

for tomorrow's sunday morning talk shows. on monday, the president will appear on the late show. republicans who may run for president in three years are addressing a gathering of christian conservative activists. it will see the first straw poll of the 2012 campaign. mike huk huckabee, mitt romney and tim pawlenty have put in appearances, sarah palin is not there. organizers did invite her. she declined because her son is returning from duty in iraq this weekend. former miss california usa prejean got a warm welcome. she claims her opposition to same sex marriage cost her the title. she believes there's a bigger crown in heaven waiting for her. this week the white house released a plan to improve the way it manages all oceans and

coasts and great lakes, based on recommendations from a task force. one member says it is crucial to have a single body overseeing ocean policies ranging from national security, conservation as well. the panel's recommendations include creating a national ocean council to coordinate issues surrounding water ways. a race of violent man eating pythons could be brewing in the everglades. scientists are actually worried it's really happening. two nonnative breeds are being illegally released into the swamped too often. if african pythons breed with burmese pythons, they could be big enough to prey on humans. the population has exploded so fast florida started a bounty hunt.

18 snakes have been captured so far. entrepreneur craig cook learned his trade in an expected place. >> when i was in my senior year in college, i spent a semester at walt disney world. one day i wanted to create a company that had the same sense of magic. >> he learned what he knew about a mouse and handed to the dogs. on weekends he volunteered at the animal shelter. took the proposal and secured $100,000 loan. that helped him to open wag a lot. one of first dog gi day cares. it was a leap in faith in following my gut. i thought as long as it's convenient for a customer to drop its way to work, it would work. >> now craig has three locations and ready to franchise.

>> disney had this idea of creating kind of this cool playground. in a way that's what i've done with dogs. hey, it's great to see you're back after that accident. well...i couldn't have gotten by without aflac! is that different from health insurance? well yeah... ...aflac pays you cash to help with the bills that health insurance doesn't cover. really? well, if you're hurt and can't work, who's going to help pay for gas? ..the mortgage, all kinds of expenses? aflacccccccccc! it's the protection you need to stay ahead of the game... exactly! aflac. we've got you under our wing. aflac, aflac, aflac... aflac, aflac, aflac

20 minutes later, she'll bring one into the world in seattle. later today, she'll help an accident victim in kansas. how can one nurse be in all these places? through the nurses she taught in this place. johnson & johnson knows, behind every nurse who touches a life... there's a nurse educator... who first touched them. ♪ you're a nurse ♪ you make a difference

look closely at this video out of mexico city. people are crowded in the subway station. then shots ring out leaving a bank police officer and federal security agent dead. the trouble reportedly started when police tried to stop a man from writing graffiti. there's the alleged gunman. gunman. the man broke free and then began shooting and then took cover on the train and kept firing. police arrested him several minutes later. five people were wounded in this shooting. german's raised its al qaeda threat level. germany's cover says this, that its increasing security measures especially at airports and train

stations. it says a -- some political parties in germany want to pull troops out of iraq and afghanistan. the video says if the german people decide to continue this war, they have sealed their fate. would you pay $5,000 just to look for a job? well, that is how much a sacramento man and his fiance spent to put up this massive "hire me" billboard. i directs potential employers to their website. david day figures that with 100,000 cars driving by that billboard every day, he's bound to get noticed. >> it's only going to take one person high up in the business either public or private that wants a good manager. looks like the jobs market took another big hit last month. the labor department says 42 states had net job losses in august.

but that is up from 29 in july. at least six states had their jobless rates fall but mostly because people gave up their job searches. but that doesn't seem to be weighing on wall street too much. stocks ended higher again yesterday, great news there, the dow jones ended the day up 36 points, while the broader indexes also posted gains. do you ever wonder all of those people spending all of those hours talking into all those cell phones? do you won't if they're putting your life in danger? find out why a new study is raising the issue then on hln news and views. ( ball bouncing ) ( screams wildly ) ( ball bouncing )/ ♪ do you need anybody! earn up to 10,000 hilton hhonors® bonus points. real value from your friends at hampton.