because next thing we know we are not a democratic state. guest: i think that as far as the debate went on the health care fight, it was probably the most open battle we had in my memory. we had a lot of great journalism people talking about the policies and what they were. i disagree that the people didn't know what was in the bill. if anything we overanalyzed what was going to happen. and outlets from the top to the times and cable news and to the blogs. as far as other things made in the bill, that's the legislative process. it's anything new and something that only democrats have done. if you look at the bush years, things happened that way as

well. it's an unfortunate thing in my opinion that we can't get things going with one single subject but that's the way it . . caller: i was a democrat and i participated in the blogs. i used to correspond until i

could no longer deny that hatred and censorship of people who might be democrats who would have a disagreement and be shouted down. but disrespected because they didn't tow the party line. i would like to disagree with what you said about the town hall meetings because out here in michigan, we had a lot of people wanting to attend but were denied town hall meetings. i followed everything on the web. it was people brought in from across the country to town halls. he wasn't beaten up but hospitalized by the s.c.i.u. who were offended that he happened to be a conservative and hospitalized him. and he is being called an uncle tom basically because he doesn't conform to group things.

host: mr. brooks, go ahead. guest: i don't know the specific details of this incident as far as that person being injured in one of the town hall meetings, but i do want to say something generally about the implication behind this that you know, there are union thugs, if you will, that come out and just cause trouble. it's absolutely not true. unions are the backbone of our middle class. and it's working people. it's people thatr you know, cleaning hotel rooms. it's people that are taking care of you in the hospital, it's people that are building cars. they have some of the hardest jobs in the country and do them well every day and they deserve our respect. host: what's the plan for today as you wrap up your convention? guest: today is a cleanup kind of day.

we have a service project here in las vegas and we're going to be working with this organization called three square which provides meals for folks and helping them in their facilities to get some meals packed and basically be packing things up and heading back home today. guest: raven brooks. thanks for getting up early to talk about the convention and the issues. host: tomorrow's program will start on president bush tax cuts. the tax foundation senior expert will talk about the various income levels. senator tom harkin of iowa. the labor and pension committees chairman, he will be our guest and steve verdier, executive

vice president of the independent community bankers association to talk about the financial regulation bill that passed and signed into law and what it means for community banks. all that, your calls and the newspapers tomorrow on "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. we'll see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, "newsmakers" with senator carl levin. then federal reserve chairman ben bernanke on the economic outlook.

after that, nomination hearing for james clapper. >> this week we welcome carl levin. senator, thank you for being with us. let me introduce our two questioners, pentagon correspondent. covers nuret for "national journal." and we'll start with you. >> senator, i wanted to ask you how you would define victory in afghanistan, what you think that will look like and how much time do you think congress and the american people will give president obama before patience runs out? >> victory to me is success, not victory -- it's not something which is going to be kind of a signed thing at the end of a war. it's going to be a gradual, hopefully we'll know when success will be achieved but won't happen at a particular moment in time.

success will be marked by the ability of an afghan government to have security and be able to retain security inside of its own borders and to provide the necessary means for its own people to have a life, which has got some hope economically, whether it's improved governance over what it is now. i won't say it's a democracy of western europe, but more democratic, more stable and stable and democratic enough that the people will support its continueance. so i would say security, number one, for its people. and that means not allowing the taliban to redominate afghanistan. >> a pretty tall order. how long do you think that will take and do you think the

american people will have the patience for it? >> it could take a number of years for all that to happen, but the best way to get the afghan government to take responsibility for its own security, which is, to me, the critical goal and always has been, is to do what the president has done by establishing a beginning point for a reduction in our forces as the signal to the afghan government that they must take principal responsibility for their own security. it is not a time when we are leaving afghanistan. this has been misstated by all kinds of folks. it is a time when we would begin to reduce our military presence. the pace of that reduction, the extent of the reduction, not to be determined in advance, but to be determined at the time. but the point of this decision

is to make it clear to the afghan government that our presence and current numbers is not an open-ended deal and not going to be getting in deeper, but be able to reduce the military side of our cooperative arrangement, not end it, but reduce it, and the economic support would continue beyond that july, 2011 time. >> how many of those goals you stated, the security, the democracy -- you said that would take several years. what do you think afghanistan will look like when u.s. troops start to pull out? how much progress will be attained by then? >> there are parts of afghanistan that are secure now, so it's not as though afghanistan is insecure now and will be secure by 2011, july. it will be -- i would say is iraq secure, for instance?

we are pulling out totally out of iraq by the end of next year. down to 50,000 by the end of this year, if my recollection is correct. but is iraq secure? there's bombings in iraq almost every day and yet we are leaving and everyone agrees we should leave. are we leaving it secure and reducing forces when it is secure? no. is it for most purposes secure? yes. is it secure enough so it's on the right path to security with some confidence? yes. and that's what i would think afghanistan will look like in july of 2011, that it will be substantially secure. most of it will be secure. and the rest of it will be clearly on a path towards security for its people and on a path where the taliban is clearly not going to be able to

reassert control because the afghan troops and the afghan police hopefully, but more importantly the troops will be in control of that country and providing the principal security for afghanistan. that to me is the goal. the measure of success to me is whether or not the afghan security forces are able to provide principally for the security of their country. >> you were recently in afghanistan and went to kandahar and the southern region and the governor of kandahar and you talked about this major significant and the afghan army is supposed to take the lead of that operation after which the afghan police will take over. we seen with kandahar, we are

having problems doing those things. you seem more optimistic that this offense will work. give me your take of why you think so. >> i would think the operation will be mixed. it's not going to be perfect success or lack of us. it will be whether or not the area, which is right in the heart of taliban country will be significantly put back into the security, control and arms of the afghan army. what's very significant about the offensive or effort which will begin, whatever the word that is being used these days, which is going to begin by the end of july, beginning of august, is not only is it an effort going right into the heart of the taliban area that has been controlled by the taliban and will loosen their

grip. without much doubt their grip will be loosened. doesn't that mean it will come back at night? no. does that mean there aren't going to be i.e.d.'s exploding? no. there will be i.e.d.'s exploding as in kabul but the afghan government is in control of kabul and it will be much more in control in the taliban area after this effort is made than it is now. and what i point to as perhaps the most important part of this, the afghan army is not only going to be there as partners with us and other coalition forces, but it's going to be in the lead. those words are very significant words. they are significant to the american people. they are significant to the afghan people. and you'll notice in the kabul conference declaration that came out of kabul a few days ago that

those words were focused on. timetable for when afghan forces will be in the lead in providing security for their country. when that phase transition is going to begin and when the goal is to complete that phased transition, a beginning point and an ending point and the words of the lead are important because i think when the afghan forces are in the lead, the taliban propoganda that the united states is there in order to dominate afghanistan will be shown for the lie that it is. the propoganda tool that the taliban uses, foreign forces occupying our country, a muslim land and that the motive is anal terrier motive will be -- an alterior motive, but partners

and taking the lead in providing security. >> i take your point. the only reason i ask this, we saw we put them in the lead and had to stumble and retake the lead. part of the narrative of the war that they're just not ready. and i'm curious, what you are hearing from the american commanders that these guys are ready, not only lead but stay around and sort of clear it and hold it? >> will there be stumbles? yes. are there enough afghan troops that can take the lead now on one campaign? clearly. you know, when i kept pressing the afghan minister and prime minister about afghan army taking responsibility, they

respond positively saying they have enough forces in some areas that can do that. but secondly, they decided to send additional battalions to kandahar, very specifically in a letter that i got from their defense minister. he said you are making an important point, 1,500 additional troops down to kandahar. that's what i believe they should be doing. we want their best troops in the area of greatest insecurity and that's what they will be doing more and more. are all the troops able to take the lead? no. what's the measure of that? hey, you can take the measure that was used three months ago and you'll get one figure. take the measure that nato is using, another figure. clearly more than enough troops to take the lead in that operation. >> what would be the most significant changes under general petraeus' command?

>> i'm not sure there will be significant changes from mcchrystal. the policy isp nt -- isn't changing from what i can see but the personnel is changing, but they are very compatible. the shift was seamless. i talked to karzai about this, because we were having lunch with them. i took him aside and said, can you tell me how are things going with general petraeus? and he said fine. they wanted mcchrystal to stay, obviously. they got along very, very well with mcchrystal and didn't happen, for good reasons. so the change was made and they understand it and they have a heck of a lot of respect for general petraeus. it is a lucky break, i believe, for the united states and for president obama that there was a general petraeus who was ready, experienced to take over when

mcchrystal was relieved of duty. it was a lucky break, because if it had been someone other than petraeus, i think people would have perceived this as being some type of a gap, a big bump in terms of our policy. but because general petraeus, who had done something similar in iraq and is sort of the father of this whole counterinsurgency doctrine and was able and willing to go back into the fray, it was just a lucky break for us and for america's continuity of policy. >> do you think general petraeus will change the rules of engagement and should he? i downtown he will change them significantly. the rules have been fairly consistent. our troops will be able to defend themselves and can take any action they need to defend themselves. >> you aren't concerned with reports on the field that they

had the whole backfire to prevent u.s. casualties? is that the right way to go? >> hold back fire in terms of defending themselves? no. taking offensive action where they believe there may be innocent civilians that are going to be killed and where that would hurt our cause when that happens? i think that the balance that general mcchrystal struck and that general petraeus will continue as far as i know is the right balance. >> given the importance you put on standing up the afghan army and i take the point that is the lynchpin, you came back and said nato is short 2,000 trainers to mentor these guys. you mentioned the stalwart allies we have but others need to be pressured to step up. i guess the best way to do that is to name them.

give me an idea -- >> i would rather not name them. i think they know who they are and i prefer not to name them. >> let me mention something else, this protection racket that your committee is doing an investigation of. i take it these private contract ors -- contractors are paying security firms for safe passage and that money is ended up in the pockets of warlords suggesting that we are funding this. and that is an extraordinary story. how serious do you think that is and what can we do about it? >> it's very serious. general petraeus and his people are determined that they are going to end it. i'm not sure when i pressed him as to exactly how they are going to end it, but i'm sure of their determination to end it.

they were pretty explicit. the afghan army, for instance, protects afghan convoys providing supplies. this is a much smaller number, providing supplies to the afghans and don't rely on these contractors who are under the thumb of local war lords and end up just being a protection racket, we'll protect your convoys, but on the side, making sure there was no end to a threat to those convoys because they are making pretty good money by quote, protecting them. i'm confident that general petraeus and his people are going to find a way -- they left it that way with me -- to find a way to end this money piece that these guys are engaging in at our expense. >> does your investigation point fingers as to how this was allowed to come about?

it seems such an outrageous story. >> it points fingers at people who are engaged in it specifically. and as to how it came about, yes, but it's pretty clear how it came about actually. we need to have protection for our convoys. we got to get an awful lot of supplies to an awful lot of troops. and we are going through territory which had been dominated by warlords and it's a very simple thing to use the existing security devices and so it's an easier, faster way to do it and when you are in the middling of a war, you are going to do things which can be done quickly. but there is a price to be paid for and that price is partly the one you mentioned, which is we actually are paying people who at times are in league with taliban who are actually the

people who are killing us. the other problem is that these warlords have their own people under their thumbs. so they are extracting money from their own people. if we are perceived to be in league with the people -- with the leaders who are exploiting their own people, it hurts us in terms of what our whole strategy is, which is to protect the people and hopefully help to put them on the road to better governance and most honest government. >> let's bring the issue back home to the domestic debate over defense spending. we are beginning to hear a lot more discussion about the need to cut back on military spending. how do you see that debate unfolding this year? >> well, this year, probably the whole focus may be on one engine, the way things operate around here. whether there should be a second engine or not and for our fighter. that, to me, is not the right

way to debate the issue. i have always favored the second engine, because i think competitively it will produce significant savings, but it's a much larger engine and much larger issue than that, although that will become a focal point for this issue. i hope it isn't, but i'm afraid it will be. so it will probably unfold this year more in what secretary gates puts in motion for next year rather than having a specific impact on this year's defense authorization bill. it will have an impact perhaps on appropriations. i don't know what the appropriations committee is going to do, frankly. but the authorization bill that came out of committee will be the base bill that will be fought over not so much by the way in terms of dollars, but in terms of issues like don't ask-don't tell, in terms of issues like whether or not we ought to be able to move

detainees out of guantanamo. republicans joined by a few democrats were able to get a provision in saying you can't transfer detainees from guantanamo to five named countries. those kinds of issues, whether or not we can direct the president of the united states to send troops to the southern border, that will be an issue. i don't see under the defense authorization bill there is going to be a huge debate over money. in terms of earmarks, even if earmarks are struck, it doesn't save any money, because it just means the funding won't be ear marked. it is still there, but won't be designated by the congress. it won't be designated by congress, but will be designated by the executive branch. so money won't be the big issues in the debate. >> more broadly, there is a sense that as we grapple with this debt problem, the increases

of 7% annually we have seen in the last decade for defense, there will be a time to belt tighten. >> there is, i just tried to mention that in my answer. next year's budget is where these battles will be fought. the two big issues will be troops in iraq and afghanistan. not going to make huge reductions if you keep the current deployments and the current size of our military. and secondly, it will be on the contractors that we hire, that we will have to cut down on the use of contractors, which represents a significant chunk of our budget. >> as part of the work on the debt commission, judd gregg has said about brac, base alignment. do you support that? >> i don't think it will produce where we are actually increasing

the size of our military. in that setting -- if we were downsizing, it's a lot easier to do. i don't see we have healed very much. >> you mentioned don't ask-don't tell, does the senate has the votes to pass it. >> we have the votes to people who want to strike it. we can pass the bill, a modest provision. it's a provision which doesn't repeal it. if you strip away all of the complexity, authorizes the defense department to repeal it. right now we have the don't ask-don't tell policy in law as well as in regulation. so in order for the defense department to change the policy, we've got to remove the legal impediment to that change, which

i hope we'll do subject to, as you know, a report which will come by the end of the year which has to be certified by the defense leaders as showing that there will be no negative impact on morale or the readiness of the force. i just heard of some polls that were taken during the 1943 world war ii about whether or not african americans should be allowed to even serve -- forget serve, be anywhere near the troops. overwhelmingly, it was no. truman did it anyway, by the way. really interesting polls. >> is that the current debate? >> it's different. the attitude towards gays is going to be much more tolerant than it was towards african americans back in the early

1940's. we have come a long, long way, not only in terms of race, but also sexual ownertation and terms of tolerance. we are a country which is toll errant and when you look at other -- tolerant and when you look at other places in the world, we are blessed with the tolerance we have in this country. >> you know, i wanted to ask you about future wars. we will be pulling troops out of iraq and afghanistan soon. al qaeda isn't in afghanistan anymore, but in pakistan, building up in yemen and somalia. americans are saying are we going to nation billingd in every country in the world until the problem is solved. and what would you say? >> we should help those governments which are willing to take on terrorist elements in their midst which threaten them. help them t