>> i want to make it clear that we are using half of these opportunities. this is important particularly i am an admirer of yours.

in the coordination is working quite well in this area. what you are hearing from senators is we don't think the court nation is going particularly well. we cannot figure out who is accountable. when we look at the product, what we know about the product in the area of green goods is a value added products. you fall behind. report after report of independent analysts says that in the green could area we are falling farther behind. when i admire and respect you and you say it is working quite well, i have to tell you that we will work with you to get this done, but if we don't make improvements in this area consistently, we will be up to 11% unemployment, we will not be

able to turn this around. with respect to anyone around here drawing on the global economy, not on our watch and with respect to coordination, i want the record to show we have to do a lot better job. we cannot say it is working well. we have fallen behind. then we are falling bend this way. secretary lcke. >> thank you very much senator wyden. i want to point out the recent jcc jc ct meeting the chinese d agree to remove local content requirements on when turbines and just last month i came back from a first-ever clean energy trade mission to china and we we successful in helping some medium-sized and small sized companies, including some from the pacific northwest secure over some $20 million in sales, much more than they had ever anticipated prior to gong on a trip. and he focus of ambassador kirkham myself has been in all of these meetings with chinese

officials to level the playing field to make sure that american companies have fair access, the same access that the chinese companies have that all we want is a level playing field. but let me tell you with respect to how do you increase the jobs especially in the clean energy field, the chinese are spending almost $9 billion a month investing in the clean energy sector energy efficiency alternative energy and they are doing this, and i think this is the sentiment of the members of your committee, they are doing this not just to address their greenhouse gasmissions or to meet their energy needs. they are trying to become the world supplier of alternate energy and energy efficiency, and we have too many u.s. companies that excel in this deck allergy, but they are underperforming simply because we don't have a clear u.s. energy policy. too many companies, too many investors are sitting on the sidelines waiting for a clear signal from the united states congress or the united states government quite frankly in terms of policy, and companies,

investors, shareholders do not want to invest in technology a of ultimate u.s. policies supports technology b in the meantime too much capital is sitting on the sidelines. if we don't move quickly, and i know you support u.s. energy policy that the longer we wait, the farther ahead the chinese are the germans or the danes will be in terms of the next economic opportunity in in the 21st century clean energy. >> let me just close with this because i think this sums it up. we unquestionably see these signs of progress in one area or another. the fact is, we continue to fall further behind. china is imposing tariffs of up to 30% on some green goods. this is flagrant protectionism, flagrant protectionism. and i want to see the administration more aggressively

get those barriers visible. the public needs to know about it and put the bully pulpit on getting them change. i just look at these negotiations, and secretary geithner said here you all are they think a week or soago, who u.s. him about indigenous-- he said there were various agreements being discussed but the highlight was essentially china was going to move into the world procurement effort as part of the negotiations, and i said, what an exple of slow walking. they promise that 10 years ago, and yet his seretary ts at the witness table and says that is what we are looking forward to. they are joined to-- going to join the world procurement. we need to have a much more aggressive effort, egg knowledge

with secretary locke has said about examples of one sort or another but what is indisputable is we are falling further behing tariffs up to 30% onome green goods, i want, as chairman of the trade subcommittee and somebody who is consistently, to use your words mr. ambassador, works to expand the global trading system, because i think trade is a democratizing force. it is good for workers and they think it helps generate market for exporters and those products are good for people around the world that we have got a lot of heavy lifting to do or we will be following this up with both of you. unless either of you have anything you would like to add it has been a long, long afternoon and we will excuse you at this time. >> we thank you for your leadership and look forward to working with you. >> thank you for yours ambassador and yours

mr. secretary. the senate is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama will announce the removal of general mcchrystal as commander in afghanistan. members of the senate armed services committee react to the announcement. then we will have two days "washington journal." then we have live coverage of the house. >> next week, watch the nomination of elena kagan to the supreme court.

what replays of each day's hearing every night at 9:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online and you can also connect with the sun twitter, facebook, and youtube and sign up for our schedule of our e- mails at c-span.org. >> yesterday, president obama announced he was removing generals down the mcchrystal from commander of allied forces in afghanistan. this move came after a "rolling stone" magazine interview with the general criticized the president and members of his administration. david petraeus has been named as his replacement. this is the president's announcement the white house.

>> today, i accepted general's des moines mcchrystal's resignation as commander of the international security assistance force in afghanistan. i did so with considerable regret, but also certainty it is the right thing for our mission in afghanistan, for our military, for our country. i am also pleased to nominate general david petraeus to take command in afghanistan which will allow was to maintain the momentum and leadership that we need to succeed. i do not make this decision based on any difference in policy with general mcchrystal as we are in full agreement about our strategy. nor do i make this decision out of any personal insult. stanley mcchrystal has always shown great courtesy and carry

out my orders' faithfully. i have great admiration for him and his long record of service in uniform. over the last nine years, with america fighting wars in iraq and afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our nation's finest soldiers. that reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence, and his love of country. i have relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead our new strategy in afghanistan. all americans should be grateful for 10 mcchrystal -- for general mcchrystal's service in uniform. war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. as difficult as it is to lose him, i believe it is a right decision for our national security.

the contract represented in the recently published article does not meet the standards that should be set by a commanding general. it undermines the stability and control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. it erodes the trust necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in afghanistan. multiple responsibilities as commander-in-chief led me to this decision. first, i have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war. and to the democrat institutions that i have been elected to lead. i have no greater honor than serving as commander in chief of our men and women in uniform. it is my duty to ensure that no diversion, but can't the vital mission there -- that nothing diverts this for the strength

and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted private and the general officer who commands than barrett that allows us to come together as one. that is part of the reason why america has the finest fighting force in the history of the world. it is also true that our democracy depends on institutions that are stronger than individuals. that includes strict adherence to the military chain of command and respect for civilian control over the chain of command. that is why as commander in chief i believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy. second, i have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to succeed in afghanistan and in our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-qaida.

i believe this mission demands unity of effort across our alliance and across my national security team. i do not think we can sustain that unity of effort and achieve our objectives in afghanistan without making this change. that, too, as that gutted my decision. i just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. doing so is not an option but an obligation. i welcome debate among my team but i will not tolerate division. all of us have personal interests. as have opinions. our politics of an actual conflict. we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another and to our troops who are in harm's way and to our country. we need to remember what this is all about. our nation is at war.

we face a very tough fight in afghanistan. americans do not flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. we persevere. we will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy afghan society from within and launch attacks against innocent man, women, and children in our country and around the world. make no mistake -- we have a clear goal. we will break the taliban's momentum. we will build an afghan capacity. we will relentlessly applied pressure on al-qaida and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both afghanistan and pakistan to do the same per. that is the strategy we agreed to last fall and that is the policy we are carrying out in afghanistan and pakistan.

in that effort, we are honored to be joined by allies and partners who have stood by us to pay the ultimate price through loss of their young people to war. they are with us because the interests and values that we share and because this mission is fundamental to the ability of free people to live in peace and security in the 21st century. general petraeus and i were able to spend some time this morning discussing this. i am extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. it should be clear to everybody that does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and his family. he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post. let me say to the american people, this is a change of personnel but not a change in policy. general petraeus fully participated in our review last

fall. he both supported and helped design a strategy that we have in place. in his current post at central command, he has worked closely with our forces in afghanistan. he has worked closely with congress. he has worked closely with the afghan and pakistani governments. and which are partners in the region. he has my full confidence. i am urging the senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible. let me conclude by saying that it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion i have made today. indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who i have come to respect and admire. the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding.

once again, i think general mcchrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation and the success of our mission in afghanistan. i look forward to working with general petraeus and my entire áq(u)ity team to succeed in our mission. i reaffirm that america stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend us. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> reaction to the prespreside's announcement.

carl levin has set a confirmation hearing for general petraeus next tuesday. >> the senators are here to rebut the last statement. [laughter] good afternoon. senator lieberman and senator gramm and i are here as members of the armed services committee and as individuals who have traveled quite often to the region and have had involvement in the issues of iraq and afghanistan for a number of years. in fact, our involvement goes all the way back to right after the fall of kabulka and bagram air force base and meeting president karzai for the first time. we applaud the decision of the united states to ask general

petraeus to serve our nation again. we think there is no one more qualified or eight more outstanding leader then general petraeus to achieve successful conclusion of the afghan conflict. we praise the service of general mcchrystal and thank him for service to our nation and wish him well, every success in the future. we are confident that general petraeus's leadership will of a positive effect on the situation in the region. we still have concerns about the civilian side. in fact, we might suggest that consideration be given to reunited crocker/petraeus team. i may never be forgiven for that because crocker is enjoying

retirement. the military and non-military side of this will enjoy the relationship between general petraeus and president karzai. the hearing for general petraeus' confirmation will probably be the fastest in history of the armed services committee. it will be done very sen. the concern that we have and the issue that will be raised in the confirmation hearing is exactly what is meant by withdrawal in the middle of 2011. whether that is etched in stone as the president's spokesperson has stated or whether there would be conditions. obviously, we feel strongly it needs to be conditioned-based because if you tell the enemy

when you are leaving then it as an adverse affect on your ability to succeed. that is a major concern and there is still a great deal of ambiguity about that issue. i am convinced that we can succeed in afghanistan with leadership and talent of the young men and women who are serving, but we have to send a message that we will do whatever is necessary in order to achieve success and that in effect means a longer period of time or an increase in troops as necessary. those actions will not be precluded in consideration of the facts on the ground. i would remind you that during the bush administration but three of us stood up to an increase in troops and it was proposed by secretary rumsfeld. we got the search proposed by president bush and secretary rumsfeld and it is not any thing but an honest difference

of opinion between ourselves and the president of united states. the withdrawal of u.s. text must be based on conditions at the time. , not an arbitrary date. >> thank you. because general stanley mcchrystal is a brave war fighter and has been a strong leader of the multinational forces in afghanistan, the unfortunate and inappropriate comments he made in the article presented president obama with a difficult decision. i think the president today stepped up and dealt with it directly and strongly and made the right decision in accepting general mcchrystal's offer of resignation. we are very fortunate indeed that david petraeus responded to the president's call to him to go and take up these responsibilities of command in

afghanistan. if there has ever been an example of someone putting national interest ahead of personal interest, it is general p'o except the command of our forces in afghanistan. i hope that the announcement that the president made today has taken a crisis and turned it into an expression by the president of his strong support for the strategy that he adopted after a thorough review last year and announced at west point last december 1 which was what happens in afghanistan is a vital security interest rate if it goes badly there, it will be bad for us here at home because that is the place from which we were attacked on 9/11. it was important to hear the

president restated his commitment to that strategy of counter insurgency in afghanistan and to success in that strategy. i and we have a higher possibility -- i think we have a higher possibility with david petraeus in charge of achieving that. i want to stress one thing that was important. the president talkkd about how important it was that his team be unified in pursuit of the strategy he, president obama, has chosen for afghanistan. he said he will always welcome internal debate but will not countenance division publicly. i think the unfortunate comments that appeared in the magazine article by general mcchrystal and his step reveal what we have known which is that there is not the kind of unity in afghanistan between our civilian and military leadership and, in

fact, there has been some unnecessary and harmful public discussion here in the u.s. about the central points of our strategy in afghanistan including what the meaning is of what the u.s. troops in afghanistan will begin to do in july of 2011. i hope that we have turned a corner here and every member of the team, civilian and military, will now work with and behind the commander in chief in achieving the success that we need to achieve in afghanistan. after the announcement today, i feel we will achieve this in afghanistan. >> this is a sad day in many ways because a good man, general mcchrystal's career is

probably over. our commander in chief had no other choice, in my view. i have been a military officer most of my adult life and there are lines you cannot cross. those lines are crossed. it was poor judgment but it was beyond poor judgment. it made it virtually impossible for the general to stay in his job as commander in chief president obama did the right thing today by accepting his resignation. that is sad. we lost a good general, but the president had no other choice because to keep him there would have crossed a line that served our country very well for a very long time. as those of us who wear the uniform have been -- have an obligation to keep our opinion to ourselves when it comes to civil-military relationships. david petraeus is our best hope. if things do not change, nobody

can pull it out buof a afghanistan. we are not doing as well as i would like. there is uneven progress for the civilian side is completely dysfunctional. the relationship between the civilian leadership and president karzai has to be changed and repaired. this is a chance to start over. i would urge the president to look at this as a chance to put new people on the ground. if we do not change quickly we will lose a war we cannot afford to lose. i think we can win. america can win. if america loses, this is a nightmare that none of us will be able to live with very long for the july, 2011 policy is confusing. it on the cuts the war effort. it empowers our enemy. confuses our friends and i think it needs to be re-evaluated. general petraeus said in an open hearing that he believes he had

the ability to go to the president in july, 2011 or earlier and tell them that things are such in afghanistan that it is not wise to withdraw troops. we may need more. he felt like he had the ability to make that recommendation. my question for the country is, will the president listened to that recommendation? i would urge the president to keep on the table the ability to hear the general out and that the general recommends that if we cannot withdraw, to keep that as an option now matter what general petraeus may recommend, we are going to leave in july 2011. we're going to lose this war if that happens. >> do not use the same words but it sounds like you have the same sentiment general mcchrystal has about frustration with the civilian leadership in the obama administration. is that accurate? >> i think some of the comments

that were made and attributed to general mcchrystal and members of his staff were exaggerated. there is a role for military and our society and that role is that you don't have to obey civilian leadership but you have to respect civilian leadership and if you don't, you have to resign. that is the relationship between the commander in chief and the military leadership. this was authenticated by harry truman's firing of general macarthur a long time ago. there is discontent, yes. there is a lack of coordination and teamwork between the military-civilian side at the embassy and other areas in afghanistan that needs to be repaired. i think that is very clear, but it is not the role of the

military or members of the military to make those comments accept up through the chain of command >> . >> i don't agree with everything that was in that article. let me put it this way -- the president went through a peer review of afghanistan last fall. on december 1, he announced our policy. there were differing camps within the administration about what the president should do in afghanistan. the president is the elected leader. he is the commander-in-chief. he decided on december 1 and announced at west point that it is in the interest of the united states to win in afghanistan and to do so by employing the same counterinsurgency strategy that general petraeus wrote and implemented for iraq. i am afraid that there may be

some in the administration will never fully accepted that decision by the president. i have continued to suggest there is different policy. the president said today very clearly that everybody in his administration has to get with the program. it is the program and the strategy and the commitment to victory in afghanistan that the president announced on december 1. >> according to a recent book, the vice president of united states, people are coming out in 2011, you can bet on it. that is not based on conditions. that is an assertion by the vice-president. that is what concerns us. >> the secretary of defense said, "no way." when you have two leaders of the

ministration saying two different things that is difficult. >> are we looking at insubordination on the part of anyone involved? when you say it is time to start over, is a time for eikenberry to go? >> this is a pivotal moment. the karzai government is in place. it is the government of afghanistan with all its imperfections. from my observations, not just from the article, there is a lot of tension on the civilian side that makes it very hard to move forward in a coherent fashion when it comes to why the president had to act, the statements of the general, not only were outside the norm, they really put in question military subordination to civilian

control. to have "rolling stone"follow you around for a month as a judgment question. [laughter] >> to these officers who were on named -- understand lawyers have been shot at and you are brave and but you let your army down. the cavalier attitude, the disrespect, even though you may have disagreements, this is unacceptable. this is a low point for the armed forces in a long time. i am glad the president made this decision and some other officers need to be looked at and they need to be replaced. >> it has been said that general petraeus has been set up for failure.

>> we have repeated our position on many occasions that we have the right strategy, but we cannot allow that strategy to be undercut by a firm date for withdrawal which sends the message to our friends and enemies alike that we are not there until we have this successful implementation of strategy. >> you have to remember that the strategies we are following in of kasten is general petraeus' strategy. you have to give him some latitude to look at it and see where he wants to move troops. that is the strategy and that is the one we support. >> are you convinced that the president is convinced -- is

committed to making this strategy work given the discussion of the timetable for withdrawal and given the fact that he does not talk much about afghanistan? >> i believe the president is committed to success whether we have the proper policy. which means the commitment to begin a withdrawal in the middle of next year regardless of the conditions on the ground i thin3 the strategy if not a uncut -- undercut by that is a strategy we can have confidence in. >> i do not question the president's motives. he understands the consequences of failure in afghanistan. it is vital for the united states to win. he has said that. it the policy enables us to win, i would argue that when the taliban center around leaflet quoting members of the

administration suggesting to people and afghanistan that after july the americans will leave that the enemy is seizing on this inconsistency and uncertainty and no matter how well motivated he may be, the policy will fail because the enemy and our friends are uncertain. as john mccain said a million times over, you cannot sound an uncertain trumpet in that part of the world. that is my concern is that the policy is going to lead to freezing of momentum, of people coming our way who are armed of fans, and it will give the enemy a sense of purpose they would not have it the july 200011 date is held to. >> can we win in afghanistan with karzai being that of the government? >> absolutely, the behavior you have seen in my view has to do

with his uncertainty about the command on the part of the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good afternoon, everybody. i support president obama decision -- president obama's decision to accept general mcchrystal's resignation. general mcchrystal has made significant contribution to our nation's security during his long and very distinguished career in uniform, but we cannot afford distractions of this kind in the middle of a war. it has been clear in the last

few days that there is no disagreement over policy between general mcchrystal and civilian leadership in the administration. that is important. this has been a disagreement over personnel and personalities, not a disagreement over policy. for many reasons, general petraeus is a solid choice to take over in afghanistan. he provides strength and he provides continuity. indeed, he was the architect of this counterinsurgency strategy and literally wrote the book that set the strategy out. general petraeus also agrees with both keep parts of the administration's policy. he supported additional troops to be surged into afghanistan during the summer.

he also supports the policy and the decisions of the commander in chief that there will be reductions in our troop levels in afghanistan beginning in july of 2011 and he supports this because it is the essential way of getting the afghans to focus on the need to transition to them the responsibility for their own security. general petraeus made clear last week for the senate armed services committee his agreement with that policy and he also made it clear then and he reiterated it to me this afternoon in my office that what will be condition-based is not whether reductions began in july 2011, but the pace of those reductions. add to the timing of the confirmation hearing on general

petraeus' nomination, it will be no later than next tuesday. we will try to make it obviously as quickly as we possibly can. i talked to general petraeus about that this afternoon and he felt that would be fine if this could be held no later than next tuesday. ok, let me open up to you, yes? ñi>> senator mccain and graham y the leadership in kabul is shaky. do you think the president should consider replacing both ambassador eikenberry and holbrooke? >> i don't they get will be helpful for me to speculate on the kind of change. one change per day is enough. >> what about the civilian

leadership being dysfunctional? >> i don't think it is dysfunctional. there has been some disagreement. that is pretty well known even before the article. between general mcchrystal and the ambassador, ambassador eikenberry. that disagreement was well known before then. now, there will be a different matter in the field and i don't know what the relationship will bait. i hope it will b much stronger. now that general petraeus is still taking over. i have to hope that the friction that did exist between general mcchrystal and eikenberry will now be dissipated with a new commander. >> general petraeus was a field commander and there was criticism by your fellow democrats in the senate.

it was suggested that he had been cooking the books on the statistics in iraq. do you think he has overcome all that? how far is the support of general petraeus among senate democrats? >> i have not checked but i think it is strong. he has proven himself in the field and he is a supporter of the president's policy. it is the architect of the counter insurgency strategy. i have not heard any of those kind of commons from my colleagues -- comments from my college. these events happened quickly but i have not heard anything like that today. cr>> what the differences in the field in iraq and can stand? >> i would give you two or three reasons.

general petraeus no counterinsurgency strategy better than anybody. he wrote the book on it. it is a counterinsurgency strategy that has been put into effect in afghanistan. secondly, he has proven that he can successfully carried out a strategy in a different situation than afghanistan. it is still a counter insurgency strategy which depends less on force and less on so-called kinetic force than it does on winning the support of the people and protecting the people and to do that not just with security forces but by winning their support through governments, as well he is a proven enter state -- -- through governance, as well he ha.

he is a proven entity. you don't want one general to leave without the next one ready to take over. >> republicans were very complimentary of the president's decision. they continue to say that the date certain for withdrawal will undermine the entire effort. the taliban will simply wait it out. >> they took that position at the beginning. that is not new. the republicans have opposed the setting of that date. general mcchrystal and economic general petraeus had supported that. that is probably the only way you can get the afghans to focus on the need to take responsibility for the security of their own country. if they understand that the leadership level that this is not an open-ended commitment, they can do this. there is a long-term commitment to the afghanistan, by the way.

there should be, but it is not an open-ended commitment. you will not continue year after year to be able to rely on american troops to provide you the principal source of your security. that has got to change and it can change for the afghan army is the most respected national institution in afghanistan. this is not true of the afghan police. this is not true with the afghan government. it is true with the afghan army and there is no reason, given the size of that army and the ability of the army, that they can take the lead according to an analysis. there is no reason they should not be in the lead in kendall park. kandahar. i did not favor the surgeon troops. i felt we should send and mentors and trainers. that's as it was made and i understand that and now we will

be supporting the troops and trying to do everything we can to have this policy 68. the only way we can act succeed understand that the principal responsibility for their own security is theirs and not ours. that is why july 2011 date is critically important. after the speech in west point by the president last december, according to general caldwell who is head of the training effort and afghanistan, there was an awareness when the president set that date to begin reductions of our troops, there was an awareness in the afghan leadership that they better get going and there was an increase, indeed a surge in recruitment in the afghan army according to general caldwell. he said the reason for that was

because the afghan leaders understood that this is not open ended. they got on the stick and i got on the pawn and they started to work all the different ways they could stimulate recruitment. recruitment jumped dramatically in the afghan army. we pressed general caldwell -- are you saying that these young men in the countryside were listening to the speech in west point? he said that was not the point for the point was that the leaders of afghanistan got the point. that the bad get moving and they did. it has had an impact in terms of recruitment. to is very, very important number one that we have a long-term committed to afghanistan and i very much support that, but that it not be that the principal source of their security is the continuing large presence of american troops. that is what that th -- that is

why that july 2011 date is an important part of that policy. you have general mcchrystal and general petraeus who agree that -- oh agree with that. i asked general mcchrystal if he agreed with that. gol>general thpetraeus also agrees with that. what happened to down the road they think our troops are needed. general petraeus said it would be his obligation to tell the president. that is not what general petraeus is about and that is not where general mcchrystal has been and that is not where secretary gates has been. nothing is etched in stone. the president could change his mind. that is the decision of the commander in chief and it is agreed with by the commander in the field.

that policy is what is a key here. , not the personalities where we have seen rough edges in the last couple of days, but the policy is critically important. it is agreed with in the field by the commander. >> you are saying what republicans are saying or agreeing that conditions on the ground two -- could dictate a change in that july 2011 date. >> it is not condition-based. the decisions made it -- we will start reductions in july of 2011 -- can the president change his mind for whatever reason? he may decide to go in another direction he may decide to reduce more quickly but a decision has been made. they agree with that decision. they have a projection of what the conditions will be in july of 2011, their best estimate.

that is a decision, not a goal, that is a decision. can anybody change their mind? of course. that is a given. that does not mean that they do not support that policy. they do. it is as clear as you can make a decision. the president of the united states, the commander oin chief made a decision. can that change? of course. that does not mean there has not been a decision of the commander in chief that they agree with. that is the decision. that is the order, ok? i think it's critically important that everybody understand that and the republicans, most of them, have never agreed with that. they cannot accept what i believe which is the reality which is the only way we will succeed in afghanistan is if the afghans take responsibility for their own security and the

people of afghanistan respect their army and number two, most of them don't want us there, as this group of elders told us sitting in a dusty room in kandahar. i asked them if they want us to stay or leave. they told us they want us to train their army and leave. >> senator mccain thought it might be the fastest confirmation in history. when you think they will take a vote on david petraeus? >> hopefully, if we have a quorum, which i expect we would. we could take a vote the same day as the hearing. we don't have to wait for the nomination papers. there is a precedent that you have a hearing before you actually get the papers.

the senate can't technically confirm without the nomination papers being here. if we are ready to go by next monday and those papers are not here, we will go. it will be no later than tuesday. technically, they have to have the papers and i expect we'll get done by monday. >> [unintelligible] >> the issue i raised with general petraeus at the last hearing and the issue with which i am very much interested in is to what extent the afghan army will be in the lead in kandahar. that is critically important because the people in afghanistan need to see that their army is in control and taking the lead against the taliban rather than outsiders taking the lead.

i have been pressing our generals. i pressed general petraeus last week on this issue. it has been something i have been focused on right from the beginning. that will be the main point that i will be talking to him about. we will again want to hear his statement relative to the strategy involved as to the troops going in and when they will be completely in. anything he can share with us on the plans for kandahar -- i will try to get specific numbers of how many afghan units will be in the lead in kandahar. if that happens, the greater success -- the greater chance of success we will have. >> is this an inopportune time

to be a reopening debate on afghanistan and the july 2011 debate? >> this is a democratic body and it is always appropriate to debate policy, i believe. our troops are owed everything. they are owed the best training, the best equipment, the best support. they are also owed the best advice that we can possibly give, the bbst spots that we can possibly have that will lead to success. they are entitled to that and i have no problem with that kind of debate next week. i did not have a problem last week with that. i think we owe that to our troops and they expected. they know the american people support them. this is a huge difference from of vietnam. the troops know that the

american people, regardless of position and policy, support them. the differences on policy will be argued with our policy makers but we will support those troops and a long as they continue to be in iraq and sense that, i have no problem whatsoever with debate over this issue this time or any other time. who has not had a chance? >> what about the votes? >> the earlier the better. i hope we can get this done and i am confident we can get this done before recess. i have a high degree of confidence that we can get this done in committee the same day that we have a gray we all know general petraeus. he was in front of us again a week ago. we all know him. i don't think there will be anybody who says they will hold

up the vote. you want continuity but number two, we know general petraeus. i can't believe there is anybody that will take the position that we have not had enough time. we know him so well and we know how essential there be continuity in terms of our commander in the field and they're not be a gap. let me take one more question. >> is there any chance you have a hearing as early as tomorrow? >> this is a matter of putting logistics' in place and making sure we have adequate attendance. anyone who wants to ask questions should be given 24 or 48 hours in advance. i hope my colleagues will not insist on that the traditionally we have advance questions for the record is a purely logistical issue.

general petraeus said tuesday was fine but i have not had a chance to talk to secretary gates, but i am sure that would be adequate as well. >> did you get a sense from general petraeus on this assignment? >> he feels this keen sense of duty. the united -- the president of united states asked him to take a great responsibility. i did not want to probe inside his inner thoughts as to what complexities or what difficulties there might be an accepting this. this represents a significant change in his life. i admire him and others who respond to that kind of call from the president. i don't think he had a chance to talk to his wife.

he knows because she is such a trooper as well that he knew what the answer would be. it was just responding to this as a sense of duty, not as an opportunity, but what he needs to do when being asked by the commander in chief and when he is comfortable with the policy that he responded very positively. >> as tomorrow a possibility for the hearings? >> the early it would be monday but we will do it as quickly as we can but it will be tuesday or before and that is from the general petraeus. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> learn more about general stearman mcchrystal and watch his 20 cspan appearances at troop level hearings, defense department briefings and other events with the cspan video library, free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. >> day on c-span, "washington journal" is live next with your phone calls and later, live coverage of the u.s. house as members debate campaign finance rules. in 45 minutes, the white house drug control policy director. then, we will talk to the house armed services committee member todd aiken about the deci t