washington journal with segments of climate change and how closed circuit cameras are used in large cities and the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce speaks at the national press club at 1:00 eastern. .

>> you have met many of the press many times. we hope at the institute of peace to have a more relaxed discussion. over tea in our living room here. thyssen in formal forum to discuss serious issues. -- this is an informal discussion. tomorrow, you will head for the 101st airborne 'hxíqbe)q' you wl head home. the focus will shift from the headlines of the day to implementation. you and president obama, our governments have made

commitments and have made specific time lines. there will be a policy review in december. there are many things to be done in a short period of time. what are your priorities? what specific steps will you take when you go back to kabul? >> this trip it indeed was very good. it was from my perspective and my delegation. there was excellent hospitality. there were a lot of discussions of this substance -- of substance. i thought i was loud enough. [laughter] no need for repetition.

it worked very, very good. i had the pleasure of informal dinner with secretary clinton and secretary gates, followed up the next morning by an extensive meeting between the afghan government and the u.s. government, the counterparts with one another. we came in groups of 05 clusters from security to economics to human resources to agriculture to army and reconciliation and governments. -- governance. we follow up with a visit to walter reed where have the honor of visiting some of your soldiers. they had returned from afghanistan with serious wounds. some have lost limbs just like i

had seen some of our soldiers lost limbs. this is a very touching part of the trip. it was one that reminds us once again that we need to do a lot more to have these soldiers come back home without injuries and happier. we had also an extensive talks yesterday with the president's and his team. today, he was busy with the congress and yesterday he was busy with the congress. i went to arlington cemetery this morning to pay respects to the dead ones buried there. in short, the trip was meaningful, substantive, and has all the right tones and objectives. going back home with this in the background, the conclusion of the trip would bring me to the

implementation of all that we discussed during our trip. that means falling up on my speech during my inauguration address, the london conference, the promises we made to the afghan people, the commitments to our international partners, and to follow up on all we have in mind and have promised. árxxythat means that the peace process always should always result in a constructive jurga like the one on may 21 which should have at least 1000 afghans from all over the country, from all the people, from all the provinces, including at least 20% women who would advise us on how to move forward with the peace process.

what pace should it have? how should we time it? how should we monitor it as we move forward? one thing that is taken for granted is that the peace process with those of the taliban are other militant groups who are not part of al- qaida or other terrorist groups or ideologically against us, i mean the allies and all of us, in any way that would endanger our constitution, the freedoms, the democracy, and the progress we have achieved, beyond that, we have the couple conference which will be afghanistan's plan for the future and programs for which preparation is going on. we will give the word -- world our outlook to the future.

we will have the parliamentary elections for which we have made the preparations with the backing of our international partners. around these three main agenda is and to continue into the future, there's the issue of governance in afghanistan and making sure that we complete our success in all aspects as soon as possible so afghanistan is a prosperous, good, a peaceful country so you are more secure in the united states and the rest of the world. >> madam secretary, the united states made commitments as well. steps taken between now and december when the policy review happens. >> let me echo what president karzai said. from our side, this was a highly successful visit.

the substantive discussion that we had i think took our relationship to an even higher level which will serve as a very good starting point for the efforts to rewrite and refurbished the strategic partnership declaration that we hope to complete by the end of this year. that will be a statement of our commitment between our two countries, not just our government but are people and it will specifically set forth the areas of cooperation and focus. we have a great visit in large part because we had excellent cooperation and coordination in preparation for the visit. i want to compliment president carbide -- president karzai and his team who have done an

excellent job. those who have met any of the ministers and representatives of the government have uniformly come away impressed. i don't want to embarrass them but i have heard from many of my colleagues in government and my former colleagues from the congress. there is a real sense of a commitment and the professionalism of the ì(lc@&c+ president karzai. on our side, we have a great effort, quarterbacked by ambassador holbrooke and the state department in washington and his team which is a very broad and deep cross-section of experts. ambassador-barry and his team in kabul. we have put together on both sides a whole government

response. this is no longer president to president. as important as that is or the occasional meeting between the secretary of defense and the minister of defense or the secretary of state and minister of foreign affairs, we are building a very strong partnership that links together all levels of our government to work on these challenges that we are facing together. certainly, the headlines are about our military and our defense, law enforcement challenges of but we are working very closely with the minister of finance and there has been great improvements in the economy. the minister of agriculture, the minister of health and education. implementation has already started because following the opening meeting we had in the state department on tuesday morning, groups broke off and went into great depth about the

specifics as to what would be the follow-through. as president karzai said, we have had milestones along the way. there will be an enormous amount of effort put in by the government of afghanistan with their support in preparation for the kabul conference. we heard a description at lunch with the president yesterday by dr. ghani about how we will have a lot of decision. it will be the afghan government that does it but we will be in support of that. there then will be an inflammation -- implementation schedule following that conference. the parliamentary elections will be very important in september. i met with the women ministers who are here a little while ago. there is a great number of women who are pushing themselves forward as candidates. the story about what is happening below the service does not get told often enough.

the ministers and the president and we on our side are determined to do so. also, it is critical that we go into this with our eyes open even though we have extremely professional counterparts that we are working with on both sides, there are very serious problems and challenges. that is why, as president karzai said, the first step in his process of moving toward some peace effort will be the peace jurga on may 29 which will bring people from across the country for a consultation. the united states supports of this and the efforts that the president and his leadership in afghanistan are pursuing. it is a multi-pronged effort. this is not just a meeting that will produce good feelings.

unfortunately, for those of us required to respond, is a meeting that produced a lot of work that we will be following up on a day-by-day and aiming toward a couple conference for our first report report. >> madam secretary, there has been a lot of discussion of the date of july, 2011 and a lot of discussion over the past week of this enduring partnership between the united states and afghanistan. is there a tension between those two concepts? there is a date by which some troops may be removed and yet, an enduring partnership that we have committed to, that strategic partnership. this is the discussion. give us your impression on how this fits. >> i will start from our side. i think the president said it very well in the press conference yesterday. we are aiming toward july, 2011,

to begin the process of transitioning security in some parts of the country to afghan security forces. it is a condition-based decision. we are impressed by the increasing capacity of the afghan security forces and both the defense minister and the interior minister on the military and police side reported the progress but also talked about the challenges. we see the july, 2011 date as another date to import -- to aim for and we believe it can be the beginning of the security transition. the enduring partnership will last long beyond any security transition, any withdrawal of combat forces overtime. we are committed to a strategic

partnership with afghanistan. we believe strongly that the afghan people love freedom. we believe their absolute commitment to their sovereignty, there believed in their own potential -- their belief in their own potential maximum good long-term partner. we intend to work with our partners in afghanistan. after president karzai is no longer president, we will have this commitment between our governments and our peoples. this is not an unusual model. we have relationships with countries all over the world where in previous times there might have been reason for american military forces to be stationed there and in some cases they still are from korea to europe.

i want people to remember our history. we have had long term, mentoring relationships long after the guns were put down. what we are doing together is trying to create the condition, thanks to the great leadership of general mcchrystal and his people on the ground, to help the afghan people regain security over their own territory but we are not going anywhere. we will be there working with them, a supporting their efforts are into the future. >> i will add a little on the july, 2011 pullout of troops.

we are planning in afghanistan to prepare ourselves in the form of the army and the police and other institutions of the evidence state to be able to provide the security of the afghan people in parts of the country where we cannot right now in the next two or three years. we want to expend that, extend that to the entire country by 2014, by the time of my term in office is completed. we are preparing ourselves for a takeover of security so we are no longer a burden to the united states and our other allies. economically, afghanistan has the potential, the manpower, the location, the geography to do

that. on the question of the enduring partnership, the strategic partnership, secretary clinton put it very correctly. it is going to be beyond the military activity right now in our campaign against terrorism and into the future long after we have retired and perhaps into our grandson's and great- grandson and great- granddaughter's generation. this is something the afghan people have been searching for a long time. the substance -- the most important substance of our conversations has been this subject and it is a subject that i can gladly take back to the

afghan people. this partnership between afghanistan and the united states is for the good of the region and will provide the much-needed confidence and peace that we are now seeking. >> madam secretary, you both know that there are skeptics in both the united states and afghanistan. they can be forgiven for asking. we have been at this for over eight years. they are asking you, i'm sure, about what is new. why do we think this will be different? the skeptics in afghanistan are worried that the united states will pull out too early. the skeptics in the united states are worried they have been there too long. how do you address the skeptics?

>> the skeptics in afghanistan are not so much, they want a stronger relationship with america this is for the stake of the region and the interests in afghanistan. the july 20 date does not pose a problem to us because we know that the united states will not abandon the calls --the casue. what we are seeking is beyond that.

>> in addition to that very fundamental point, skepticism is part of the american character. it goes with the territory. it is important because hard questions need to be asked all the time. that is exactly what president obama did when he came into office. he was confronted a very early in his term with a request that have been held over from the prior administration for additional troops. he agreed with that request but he ordered a thorough review of our policy. it was extraordinarily in depth. i have lost track of all the meetings that we had both with the national security team and with the president. at the end of that review, the president reached a conclusion that i think should be respected by americans because it was not a fore-ordained conclusion or

something he had to do. he did after very careful examination of the facts of what was at stake for the united states and of the importance going forward of our commitment to a afghanistan. -- to afghanistan. i understand there are people who are skeptical because that goes with the territory. this is a commitment that we believe very strongly is in america's interest. we want to see afghanistan succeed. we want to say the people of afghanistan have a future of peace and prosperity and progress after so many years of suffering. we are in afghanistan because it is in america's interest. these interests converge. that is really what this meeting this week has been about. it demonstrates clearly and

unequivocally of a convergence of our two respective nations' interests. we're well aware of how hard the task is ahead. we are well aware that we face a determined, route less common enemy. are we all aware that afghanistan lives in a dangerous and difficult neighborhood. i don't think there is any issue or question that any skeptic could raise that we have not thought about and carefully worked our way through. we are very committed and as the president said, we're very confident of the success of this going forward. >> mr. president, how comfortable are you with the plans of your forces, your coalition forces for the spring and summer in canada are. --kanduhar.

>> we are talking of a process and the process means bringing conditions kanduahr and the surrounding region where there is governance, better resources , more active, but vigorous, vibrantf

succeed. when i return, i will be revisiting kanduhar engaging with the community. we will be engaged them on the question and move toward stabilization. that area does not have frontlines. it is terrorist activity. it is more psychological than physical presence. the terrorist and the taliban and we need to have the appropriate tools. >> if i could add to what president karzai barre rightly described as the approach that is being taken by the afghan international forces concerning kanduhar, is important for

people to realize that this is not marja. \ this is a different campaign. marja was much more dominated by the talibankanduhar is a bustling city that has an enormous amount of economic activity. people are getting on with our laws but there are pockets of taliban insurgents who are engaging in a variety of by ellen? including assassinating the deputy mayor a few weeks ago. as was explained to the president and national security team, this will be an action that will use different tools because the goal is to root out from what is a very active and ongoing urban area those who

intimidate. they do not pose a threat to kanduhar. they will not take over but their presence has a chilling affect. it keeps people inside. it keeps girls from going to school. it keeps people from killfeeling comfortable are going to public places or working with the farmers, as we have heard. this is a different kind of campaign. this is not a massive assault. this is a much more targeted effort to try to weed out the taliban. we have no doubt they are dug- in. we have no doubt they have support there. as the president said, the combination of the military and intelligence assets of both the afghanistan and the international forces, the president's own personal

involvement in going to kanduhar and meeting with leaders because in many counterinsurgency, the goal is to win the confidence of the people so they will become your allies and will not be intimidated into giving safe haven to the taliban. they will pick up the phone or walk outside and tell somebody that there is some specifics this activity going on -- sums suspicious activity going on. we hope for an early success. >> in that same line, you are the commander in chief. the secretary mentioned there are taliban killing your officials in cities in afghanistan. in the afghan culture, how does this notion of being commander

in chief work? >> the afghans are not unknown to a situation like that. it is understood and comprehended. there's one difference in my mind. we are speaking from a higher moral ground. we are in a time where there is terrorism, suicide bombers and those behind such a tax -- such attacks have been immense disrespect and abuse against the general morality of human beings. for example, earlier, our

minister of interior was describing to senator kerry and other senators over lunch that we have a 14-year-old boy who came and said he was trained as a suicide bomber and he does not want to be. we are looking for the parents of this boy to bring them over and returned the boy back to the family. we don't find them an equal opponent in those terms. they have stooped very low into the abyss of lack of morality, or if you could describe it as a morality. -- as immorality. we are also morally higher, claim better, and that is the

winning passion. >> mr. president, you have mentioned a couple of times the peace jurga and the preparations for that. one of your ministers reminded me that in work at usip, two years ago the plan was put together for reconciliation as well as the surge. it is coming about and your plans later this month for the peace jurga -- your ambassador was going to join us asked what is the outcome? what will be the reconciliation? >> reintegration means the return back home and the

disconnection with fighting and arms of those thousands of taliban soldiers who had been driven out of their homes and their country by circumstances beyond our reach or control and beyond theirs. those who have been driven out of their homes and into the arms of those who would give them guns to fight against their own country because of the mistakes we have made in the afghan government and our coalition partners. these thousands of taliban that we are trying to address and reintegrate are ideologically not against us. they're people who do not hate the united states and perhaps some of them like to visit given the opportunity. they don't pay their own government or country and would not have a problem with our constitution.

out of fear other circumstances, they are fighting against their own country. we must try and legitimately tried to return them. reconciliation is an entirely different issue. it affects our neighbors in pakistan who are also involved and many regional questions are involved. reintegration is about those i described earlier and reconciliation is more difficult, more to the future. >> madame secretary -- we have been cautious about the reconciliation component of this and yet, the president has lent support. there are certain conditions. are we prepared to support these compromises that will

presumably come out of these negotiations with senior tell that? >> i think we have the same position that president karzai does, that there are certain conditions that have to be met, that people cannot just show up and say they are prepared to re- enter afghan society after having directed suicide attempts and other kinds of violence against afghanistan. as the president said, this process starts with the reintegration of the battlefield that the president was describing, of the people who for a variety of reasons found themselves in the ranks of the taliban. i don't think any of us can predict what the outcome of the next phase will bay. first, the president has to have his own peace jurga and listen

to his own people because they may have strong opinions. they may be willing to see the president's discuss reconciliation and then maybe people that will not. they are also leaders of the afghan taliban who don't -- who do not want to reconcile. they are very much against it. we do not expect to see them walk through the door. starting with reintegration but thinking hard about what reconciliation act would mean an from our perspective, everyone, whether it is a person who pursues reintegration or reconciliation, they must abide by the laws of the constitution of the government and nation of afghanistan. they must renounce violence. they must cut ties with al- qaida and these extremist allies that are in these networks that al-qaida is either directly or inspiring. on a personal note, they must

respect women's rights. the women of afghanistan who still suffer too much with one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, they deserve our support and they are receiving support from their president and their governments. nothing can be permitted to interfere with that. there of any steps along this way. the general principle is to see how possible it will be to try to move on a political track. there is no military solution to this conflict as with most complex. there has to be a political tract that is pursued and we will support the president's efforts in doing that. >> as was mentioned, there are other people in addition to the people in this room watching this down the hall and they have been able to ask some questions. i will turn to their questions

and turn to questions of people in this room. one of the questions that comes from the other room, mr. president, can a free, fair, election be held this year? >> absolutely. afghanistan began the current democratic process in 2000 to of this liberation. we did well. millions of people participated in the elections. the first election of the president and the provincial councils, the election for the parliament, the first election, and then the second election for the president and now the second parliamentary election.

we have in place all the necessary tools to make sure that the election isvó3ñ credibe and in keeping with the standards that we can apply in afghanistan there will be international service there. we have a new commission set up. we have international election experts who will be part of the process. they're already a few thousand candidates of home --of whom many are women which is more than we had in the previous election. the enthusiasm, the zeal, is that the right word? all right -- there is a zeal in the afghan people to

participate and to challenge democracy. that is the motor running of democracy. >> it will be a challenge. you are absolutely right. the time is short. you haven't september but there are preparations that need to take place. let me ask if there are questions from the room that people would like to raise. mark kalb, i see his hand up -- >> i am from the united states institute of peace. could you tell us how many afghan troops and police you

have now? how many do you think you will need to launch a successful counterinsurgency and how long do you think you'll need them? >> the question has to do with the size of the afghan forces and the police and army. >> we are now at nearly the mid stage of the operations of the army and police. in other words, the minister of defence and the minister of the interior, our army has crossed 120,000. we have well-trained troops and officers. about three months ago, i went to witness and gave the certificates of the second batch

of afghan military academy graduates who looked quite professional and were in uniform s. the afghan police is nearly 180,000. the training is going on. the army began its training early on from 2000 to onwards would speed with a little -- from 2002 onwards with speed. we only began to pay full attention to this important element of afghan security in 2007. now, there is massive investment by the united states and our allies in europe to the training of the police. the structure is emerging and

the professionalism is emerging. the discipline is being seen on the streets of the capitol and the rest of the country. while this is going on, the police are daily facing the threat of terrorism and sacrificing daily at least four policemen per day. they are dying in afghanistan defending their country. that is the average we have taken. sometimes there are bigger numbers. the aspiration of the minister of defence and the minister of the interior is to have our army and police reached together at least 300,000.

the minister of defense, of course, is asking for much more. he is asking for 400,000. i am quite cautious for the cost it will incur in the future. we are trying to have the right numbers between 300,000 to 350,000 for now. as we move forward and bring stability, we will concentrate more on quality and equipment rather than numbers. >> that brings up a question of the sustainability of 400,000 afghan national security forces. dr. ghani has been describing the mineral wealth. you mentioned a couple of days ago at the state department that sometimes in the not too distant future when afghanistan can stand on its own feet financially. 400,000 troops of of various

kinds will be essential. >> if we keep going at the current speed of revenue collection, is the minister of of finance around? this year, we had a 22% increase in our revenue collection. yesterday, used a 22%. [laughter] >> it was a good day. >> 22% of gdp growth. if we move at this speed, within three years, afghanistan will be able to pay for the existing members of our security forces. that is within three years. we will pay military and police from our own pocket. that will be a tremendous achievement.

it is a benchmark that i hope our ministers will keep strongly in mind so we can come back later to the united states and show you we have done it and we will not be asking for salaries but we will ask for investment and f-16s. [laughter] >> there is an afghan journalist i would like to call on. >> i am an indian. what is the outcome of the trip and what is next for the people of of can stand for you going

back? madam secretary, i would like to ask you about that cbs news were you talking about the consequences of the afghanistan and the united states having its footprint in pakistan. the context in which you gave that statement was misinterpreted by the media. also, we would like a preview of the india-pakistan talks in july. >> sir, i will take away back home quite a few achievements. one thing i will take back home

is to tell the afghan people of this tremendously warm hospitality of the american people. i will tell them we have to do more to show we are also hospital in afghanistan. second, on issues of concern to both countries, we have reached agreements on a range of issues. the most important of such issues, as far as evidence are concerned, were issues of the tensions in afghanistan run by the coalition forces. we have agreed that there will be a transition of the detention center to the afghan authorities january of next year. that will be as soon as we are in kabul, planning teams on both sides to coordinate the exact time lines.

there is a strong sentiment expressed by the president and by the secretary of state and by the defense secretary and the vice president yesterday on civilian casualties and the desire for the protection of civilians to be more strong and very visible. the question of nighttime raids that concerns the afghan people was raised with the desire to reduce it to a minimum as much as possible. on economic matters, we have extensive engagement and the importance of agriculture and the viability of the afghan the sector to produce the best quality of food and export resources, the ability of galveston, the richness of the afghanistan that can run off the

knowledge we have today of the afghan mineral resources to over $1 billion. it can be between $1 billion up to $3 billion. -- $3 trillion. that's what i meant. $1 trillion up to $3 trillion. this is a massive wealth and opportunity and with help given by the united states, afghanistan will be able to do this. these are very good messages we can take back. >> with respect to the question that the gentleman asked me, i

responded at great length to the interviewer on "60 minutes," talking about the importance of strategic relationship we are developing with pakistan and the fact that we have expended our interactions far beyond the counter-terrorism agenda which was basically what we inherited. we're focused on trying to create a broader and deeper understanding between our two countries and that we have gone quite a distance in creating a better atmosphere. however, we are concerned about the recent attack and other efforts that thankfully have not been successful. president karzai said he was concerned, as well. we have been encouraged by the

way the pakistani government and military, in this past year, been much more willing to go after the terrorists who are all in threatening -- or not only threatening outsiders but threatening them. we think there is more that has to be done. we do fear the consequences of a successful attack that can be traced back to pakistan. we value and more content -- comprehensive relationship. we expect more and the investigation is going well between our two investigative bodies. there is a lot of effort being undertaken on the pakistani side to provide information to our teams over here. we believe strongly that there is more pakistan must do to face what is now common enemy.

the attacks by the extremists inside pakistan are no longer able to cross their borders. they are aimed at destroying and killing people in mosques, in markets, in every walk of society. this is a matter of great concern to the american people and to our government but we think that the concern is being reciprocated on the part of pakistan. >> we have time for one last question from someone here. although it back? all the way back. yes. >> mr. president, could you clarify something you said a few minutes ago -- what did you mean that by last week the approach to the kanduhar operation has taken the right tone? separately, did president obama

or anyone else talk to you this week and ask you to sideline or fire your brother from his role in kanduhar and do you believe it is appropriate for the united states to have an opinion for that? >> since last week in the consultations we have had, the efforts in kanduhar has to be explained better. the modality of it has to be explained better so we're not calling it an operation. that would indicate a military operation with troops moving in. that is not the situation in kanduahr which the secretary of state described very aptly.

we are describing a process. it is a change in terminology and for the right objective. the president did not raise the issue of my brother in kanduhar, i raised it. to the satisfaction of both sides, even if i were to resolve an activity of the firing or hiring, afghanistan is a democratic country and one affected by the people -- and once elected by the people cannot be fired by the president. he can fire me but i cannot fire him. that was not discussed and the issues raised in the american press or the european press have now been understood better by our u.s. counterparts. i will now go into further

detail on that. the issue is resolved as it stands now. >> i have nothing to add to that. i chose want to add one thing to what the president said initially about the kanduhar operation. i have for the commentary in anticipation of this operation making it sound like it was going to be a massive military action. we are ceding the city, tanks rolling into the city, that is not the kind of operation that our military leaders believe is warranted. they want to have a successful counter insurgency operation that does not destroy can depart in the efforts to savekanduhar. as someone rightly said to me, one of our military calis, this is not falujia.

lessons have been learned. the people guiding this operation like general petraeus and generalmcchrystal learned those lessons in iraq. you cannot wake up one morning and the d-day has started. that is not what this is about. that is not what counter insurgency is about. we're not fighting the afghan people. we are fighting a small minority, a very dedicated, ruthless extremist who unfortunately are able to enlist young man like the president was referencing earlier for a variety of reasons and send them out onto the battlefield. the goal is to help the people of kanduhar recover the entire city to put it to the use and benefit of the people of kanduhar.

that is what we are aiming to accomplish and we have confidence in our afghan partners and our international coalition. >> on behalf of the united states institute of peace, i would like to thank president karzai and secretary of state clinton for being with us today. i would ask that if everyone would remain in their seats while the president and secretary the part. member is of the afghan delegation traveling in the motorcade please depart so we can have an orderly transition. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ]general chatter] [general chatter]

>> today's headlines and your calls are next on "washington journal." the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce -- commerce speaks of the -- national press club. that is at 1:00 p.m. we will look at efforts to prevent homegrown terrorism from the madison policy forum. at 8:30 eastern, more about climate change with democratic senator jeff bingaman. and former fbi liaison discusses how surveillance cameras are used in london to lower