tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN August 24, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
5:00 pm
please be formulating your questions for the time when we return. please make them brief and to the point. we remind you that members and guests alike are welcome to submit questions today. we hope all of you to are not members will consider joining, and help support the nearly 100 years of the city club of cleveland. this friday at royal mike wolin, who is chairman of the jeep -- joint chiefs of staff will address the city club. one week from this friday the city club will welcome it terry stewart, who is president ceo of the rock and roll hall of fame. there are other programs coming up in the future that are listed in the programs at your table. today we are pleased to welcome guests at the greater cleveland
5:01 pm
partnership, for your rights, and university hospital. we thank all of those organizations for supporting us today. now we will return to the speaker for the traditional question and answers period. holding the microphone today is keri miller in the back. i would like to remind you that we are asking for a brief questions. no speeches please. . .
5:02 pm
>> senator mcconnell and myself work together to put six serious members on this commission in the hope that they will be able to come forward with the recommendation. i do not think there is ample time, if there are -- i hope there is ample time, if there are recommendations, for the american people to have a clearer view of what is being recommended, and who have a chance to read it, discuss it and it debated before congress puts it on the table. there are those who have continued to advocate for higher taxes. one that we continue to hear,
5:03 pm
some of the more liberal members of the commission, is the idea that we ought to have a value- added tax, and national sales tax on top of all of the other taxes that we have. why would not support that, nor do i believe any of my colleagues in the house or senate would. >> thank you for coming this morning. we appreciate your presence. i would like to know, from your point of view, where paul volcker fits in, and whether the administration, at any level, is really listening to him. >> i think you would have to ask the administration. i know that they have been in touch with him. he has made some suggestions with regard to bank reform, but in terms of overall economic policy, i do not know that i have heard anything from him. i would not know whether the administration is listening to
5:04 pm
him or not. >> congressman, and thank you for your service. recently, nancy pelosi said she joined with others in wanting to oppose the ground zero moscoque. i wonder what your reaction is. >> i'm not sure what should be investigated. the american people are concerned about this. no one doubts the rights of these people to build a mos que where they see fit. just because they have a right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. the american people believe, overwhelmingly, that this is not the right thing to do. >> would you comment on the connection between our immigration policy, or what it ought to be, and the economic activity of the country? >> the issue of immigration has
5:05 pm
been a very divisive issue for the last several years in america. a large number of illegal immigrants, undocumented workers, if you will, are in our country. but you have to remember is this. the united states allows more than 1 million people annually to come here legally. 1 million. more than all of the other world countries put together. i think the when you look at how open our arms are, it is pretty clear that we are a nation of immigrants. when you look at the overall problem though, the american people are upset because we are unable, and have been unwilling to secure our borders and enforce our laws. i do not think the american people will allow the congress or the government in washington to move down the path, in terms of anything that looks like comprehensive reform, until they have some confidence that we are
5:06 pm
willing and have the ability to secure our borders and enforce our laws. >> congressman, welcome back to cleveland. nice tie, by the way. >> thank you. [laughter] >> across the country, as voters are sorting out who to vote for, they have a tough choice between eating to build jobs and not kill jobs. voters are generally considering candidate with private sector business experience or people who have come from the government who have spent their entire careers in the the government and never spent any time into the private sector. >> you know, i used to play softball. [laughter] let me tell you a story. i was growing my business in and
5:07 pm
the mid-late 1970's. while i was doing that, i got involved in my neighborhood homeowners' association. that put me in a path that i thought -- that put me on a path that i never thought in my wildest dreams i would be on. i have 11 brothers and sisters. my dad owns a barber. growing up in america, you can be anything that you want to be, and do anything that you want to do. america has been an opportunity machine four years. that has been the key to our success. but the bigger the government gets, the smaller the people get. the more the government takes, the less you have to invest in yourself, your family, your community, your business. i never wanted to do this, but i thought the government was joking the goose who was laying
5:08 pm
the golden egg. i -- choking the abuse to was laying the golden egg. goose who was laying the golden egg. people come up to me all the time and say, i want a career in politics, what should i do? i tell them, the first thing you should do is go out and get a real job. people come to washington with a wealth of experience and background to make decisions on behalf of their constituents. >> good morning. thank you for coming to cleveland. he mentioned representative paul ryan. i understand he will head the house budget committee if republicans take back to the house in november. he has outlined a plan called "the road map for america's future."
5:09 pm
it will erase the deficit by 2063, simplify the tax code, and significantly alter medicare, medicaid and social security. it only has 13 co-sponsors, republican co-sponsors, and it is reported to representative ryan has s s s s s s that his gp colleagues are too afraid to endorse a plan that they agree with. you have indicated that the roadmap will not be part of the republican agenda this fall and that you have doubts about how good the policy is for parts of the plan. could you tell us which parts of the plan you have doubts about? >> when you look at paul ryan's work, i have to tell you, he and his colleagues on the budget committee have done some really, really good work in putting this plan together. but let's talk about what it is. it is not a budget. it is a 75-year plan, written by a handful of members who did serious work trying to figure out how we address the big
5:10 pm
problems facing our country. listen. i said earlier, it is time that we had an adult conversation with the american people about the challenges we face. we face big challenges but in the short term and in the long term. our job, all of us, not just the members of the congress, all of have a responsibility to leave our country in better shape than what we found it. you probably have a hard time finding an american today who believes that is the case. that challenges in front of us, and we are not going to solve that challenge by giving in to the usual scare tactics and political -- to the usual scare tactics and political nonsense that goes on. i know it is going to be -- it is not going to be easy, but the sooner we have this conversation about the problems that we face, the potential solutions to those
5:11 pm
problems, and the zeroing down of what the real solutions are, we are never going to have a brighter future for our kids and there's. >> the administration, for a whole host of reasons, wants to wean the united states off of carbon based fuels. every analysis shows that nuclear power produces most of the megawatts to do that, yet the only repository for nuclear waste plant are conceived or developed in this country is yucca mountain in nevada, and it is stopped and dread -- it is stopped dead in its tracks by harry reid. . >> most republicans have supported yucca mountain for the 20 years that i have been there. the american people would be shocked to know how much nuclear waste is just miles from their home. i have visited every nuclear plant around the country.
5:12 pm
why? because we cannot get yucca mountain finished because it is not politically correct. we have invested tens of billions of dollars in a storage facility that is as safe as anything we are going to find. even if we are not willing to store it, why would we not as the country begin to reprocess much of this nuclear waste, where you can reduce the waste by about 90%? listen, when the french can produce 82% of their electricity with nuclear power, there is no reason why the united states cannot. it is just a matter of wealth, and during the 20 years that i have been in congress, it has not been politically correct to support a nuclear energy. we are serious about bringing more resources in the energy field and reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. we have to do all of the above. it means that we ought to have
5:13 pm
renewals, wind, solar, and i am also for additional oil and gas exploration that i think we can do in an environmentally sensitive way. we also need clean coal technology and we need nuclear power. we have to do all of the above if we are serious about growing our economy and moving ourselves off of this dependence on foreign oil. when you look at what the chinese are doing, they are building coal-fired power plant. they are building nuclear power plants, and they are buying energy resource they can get their hands on any place in the world. why? because they understand that you cannot grow an economy without energy. >> good morning, leader bonner. -- boehner. why do we know launder use
5:14 pm
resources that we have in america, such as -- why do we know longer use resources that we have in america, such as the steel these to be produced in ohio? >> it gap in trade goes into effect, what will happen -- if and trade -- cap and trade goes into effect, the steel produced in china will be much cheaper than the steel produced here. we continue to be the largest exporter of manufactured goods and services in the world. that is why these free trade agreement with panama, colombia, and south korea access to our market. -- south korea. those countries have access to our market.
5:15 pm
>> thank you for coming today. when dennis kucinich is defeated in november and republican state that the house -- [applause] i just am curious if there has been any discussion of what we can do to push back the unelected fourth branch of government, the regulatory branch, and what specific plans, because it seems like with this administration they take on new power every day. i just wonder if you could share some insight into how we could do that? >> a lot of this is the congress's fault. we have reduced members to being near voters. i remember, growing up in the ohio house, you learn pretty quickly how to be a legislator. the members are not legislators anymore. they are voters. they whip out there voting card and they vote.
5:16 pm
when you look at the laws that are passed today, you will see hundreds and hundreds of role makings' required by some agency of the federal government. you can look at the financial- services bill that was signed into law requiring three or four hundred new regulatory filings that have to occur. when you look at the health care bill, again using dozens and dozens and dozens of regulatory filings that have to happen. when you ask your consultant to advise you as to how much of your health insurance will cost under a new plan, they cannot tell you. why? because the rules have not been written yet. this is where congress needs to provide proper oversight of executive branch agencies. i think congress has given up far too much of its power to the executive branch. congress needs to provide effective oversight. congress wants to pass a law, then we ought to pass a law, we
5:17 pm
ought to make it clear what we are doing and righted and lock, and not even -- write it in the law, and not leave it to executive busybodies and bureaucrats to decide for us. all of these rules and regulations, somebody has to comply with them, but you cannot comply with them until you understand what they are. so you have to hire a consultant to find out, how is this affecting my business? then you have to devise a record keeping and whatever remedial action you have to take. every role, every regulation costs someone. if you look at why we're losing manufacturing jobs in america, it is because of high corporate taxes and more regulations on any -- on american businesses than any other country in america. that is driving up costs and making america less -- than any other country in the world.
5:18 pm
that is driving up costs and making america less competitive. >> i am wondering about regulations going into effect on fannie and freddie. how do we get a handle in that and prevent billions of dollars in more bailout funds for those two organizations? >> that is one of the reasons i had to oppose the bill. they are going to punish every financial institution in america, every financial institution in america to pay for the sins of a handle on wall street. the three biggest problems that led to the downfall and the financial meltdown, fannie mae, freddie mac, and subprime lending, none of the three are addressed in this bill. now they have to be addressed. we have pumped billions of dollars into fannie mae and freddie mac. god only knows how much more we will have to put into them.
5:19 pm
there is no plan to reform these to quasi--government agencies. it needs to be done. >> could you comment briefly on global warming? do you think it is a concern, and if cap and trade is not the right approach, do you have a strategic approach that you would recommend? >> there is no question that there has been a change in our climate. how much man is responsible for this is still up for debate, as we have seen over the last couple of years. there is a lot of different debate over a man's role. when you look at a volcanic eruption which i have seen scientist revealed could be 50,000 times what man's involvement in creating co2 would be, you begin to scratch
5:20 pm
your head and wonder, wait a minute. what is this? but before we jump off the deep end of proposing a national energy tax that will cost us millions of jobs every year, we ought to have real evidence about what the facts are. i would also add this. if you want a serious attempt at cleaning up the air, listen, i do not want to breed dirty air. i do not want my kids or grandkids to do it. we should do all of the above. if we did all of the above, we would have more energy, cheaper energy, and frankly, we would have cleaner air. this is a common-sense a step toward addressing the issues of climate change ncr to -- climate change and co2 in a way that would benefit all americans. [applause] >> we have been listening to
5:21 pm
5:22 pm
concession speeches from both candidates. our coverage starts tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern. incumbent senator john mccain is battling a j.d. hayworth for the republican nomination in arizona. we are your hamas for all 2010 election coverage. -- we are your home for all 2010 election coverage. herrod as it turned down a job that was offered to her by the usda. she was fired after remarks in a doctored video were aired. tom vilsack apologized and offered her a new position. she has declined. tom vilsack jointer for this news conference.
5:23 pm
>> good morning to everyone. we have just concluded about an hour and a half conversation hirley.self and surel we had the assistant secretary for civil rights in the the room. we had a good conversation. shirley was interested in the progress we have made in a lawsuit filed against the department for civil rights violations. i think it is fair to say that we both feel is appropriate and necessary for action to be taken
5:24 pm
as quickly as possible to ensure that appropriations for those cases are made and that we get those cases settled as quickly as possible, as well as the cases that have been filed against the department by native americans and hispanic men and women farmers. we also talked about the fact that for eight years prior to this administration, there were a number of claims that for whatever reason were not fully looked at or investigated. we have reopened those cases, but we need congressional authorization to make sure that those people who were not treated fairly are addressed. hirley is interested in doing some work with us as an independent consultant. we asked the jackson lewis group to go out into a number of state and take a real hard look at our current procedures and policies in terms of how we deal with people that come into the farm
5:25 pm
service agency offices and rural development offices, to see if there are ways to make sure that we do not have these problems of discrimination in the future. the work will be completed sometime this year. that will be relevant to our next steps in the department. i did my best, i think it is fair to say, to try to get shirley to come back to usda on a full-time basis. we talked about the department of our region what are unique skills could bring to that office. we also talked about other opportunities that could be made available if that was not something she was interested in doing, to return to georgia as a stage director. for reasons she will get into, that does not fit what she needs, once or deserves. we talked about the possibility
5:26 pm
of utilizing her unique characteristics and experience, and her passion, her undying passion, tuesday discrimination -- to see discrimination routed from this country. she will work with us as a consultant to see our processes and procedures improved at all levels. it is my hope that we can ask her to assist us in some sort of consulting a way for full implementation of those recommendations. i think there is no one in the country better suited to assist us in that effort. having been a victim of discrimination, having had a family who suffered a painful loss as a result of discrimination, having served as the director of rural development, knowing full well the programs, and having worked in georgia to begin changing things in that state so that there was fairness and full
5:27 pm
opportunity, there is no one that can better help us in that position. we are looking forward to later in the year reconnecting once the report is concluded, and we also talk very briefly about the steps we have taken internally within usda following our study of the circumstances and some of the steps that we are taking to improve decision making at usda. with that,shirley. >> good morning. i want to say thank you to the secretary for the updates on pickford and the discussion we have had this morning about what happened. clandestine at that will be taken in the future -- and of the steps that will be taken in the future so that hopefully no one in the future will have to deal with what i have had to
5:28 pm
deal with over the last four or five weeks. i enjoyed my work at the usda. as most of you know, i did not work in government prior to about one year ago. i only lasted 11 months, but i did enjoy the work, and would want to see the work continue. i just do not think at this point, with all that has happened, i can do that either in the new position that was offered or as state director for rural development in georgia. it does not mean that i am not interested in that work, because i certainly am. i was working on many of those issues long before coming to the government, and would hope to be able to work on many of those issues in the future. i have had lots of support from around the country.
5:29 pm
i have had many, many, many thousands of pieces of mail. many of those i would like to answer. i need a little time to be able to deal with that. to sort of take a break from some of all that i have had to deal with over the last few weeks. i look forward to some type of relationship with the department in the future. we do need to work on the issues of discrimination and racism in this country. i certainly would like to play my role in trying to help deal with it. thank you. >> questions from members of the media?
5:30 pm
>> secretary vilsack, could you tell us a little bit about the investigation into what happened? >> it starts with the responsibility that i have to take personally for making sure the instructions given to staff are clear and complete and comprehensive. it requires us to take a look at the travel schedules to make sure that we have sufficient staff in various offices. at the time this incident occurred, i was on travel, the chief of staff was on travel. we need to do a better job of coordinating travel schedules. we also need to take a look at the process that was used for political appointees in terms of action and steps. we need a much more collaborative process, in gauging the undersecretaries and senior staff members before decisions are finalized. we also have to make sure that everyone has contact information
5:31 pm
that is accurate and complete, and we have to establish protocols for contacting folks who may be in a situation where there may be the possibility of disciplinary action to make sure that their rights are fully protected. political appointees are treated a little bit differently than career appointees, and we need to make sure there is a more parallel system for political appointees so what shirley went through does not have to happen again. these recommendations are in the process of being incorporated into our procedures now. >> the afternoon that ms. sure rsherrod came out and declared what what happened -- what had happened, and it was clear that de rigueur -- it was clear the remarks had been taken in the wrong context, you stood by her dismissal. >> i did not have the full range
5:32 pm
of advice and counsel. i was not aware that the undersecretary was attempting to get a hold of me to suggest that perhaps we needed to take another period of time to radio -- to review. obviously, when the full transcript of shirley's remarks were made known to me, it was a situation where her comments were taken totally and completely out of context, and the main message, which was very supportive of what we're trying to do a usda, was not inconsistent, as i had originally thought, but very consistent with what we're trying to do. what surely was trying to point out is that there was and has been for some time issues of bias and discrimination in this country. faugh usda, because of the enormity of our impart -- usda, because of the enormity of our departments, needed to be an
5:33 pm
example, an exemplary administration and an exemplary department. when it comes to civil rights, obviously we have had work to do. all of that transpired in a couple of days. it led me to believe that i had made a mistake, which acknowledged. i contacted her and daughter was sorry for what we had done and asked for her -- i contacted her and told her i was sorry for what we had done and asked for her forgiveness, which she was kind enough to give to me. >> ms. sherrod, is this a satisfactory conclusion to what you have been through? would it have not been more satisfactory if you had stayed in the problem and -- stayed in the building and work on the problem of discrimination? >> that sounds like the hard sell i tried to give you in the
5:34 pm
office. >> yes, it is. the secretary did push really, really hard for me to stay and work from the inside in the position. it is a new position. i, you know, look what happened now, and i know he has apologized, and i accept that. he said in the process is in place, and i hope that it works. i do not want to be the one to tested. -- test it. i think i can be helpful to him and the department if i just take a little break and look at how i can be more helpful in the future. i guess that is enough to be said. >> may i say this? i think it is important to
5:35 pm
understand why she had a unique opportunity this year. in her work in georgia, she was beginning a process of going into counties and areas of our state where there was deep poverty, high unemployment, not much outrage from previous efforts by usda. she was making strides to make sure that those counties that had been ignored in the process were recognized, appreciated and helped. that i the kind of worke suspect will come forward with the recommendations and the two year review that is taking place of our programs. at that point, we can i think taylor an opportunity to meet those unique characteristics, and she can help us implement those recommendations with a focus where she is not worried about administrative issues,
5:36 pm
having to deal with personnel or budgets or things of that nature. the details, the day-to-day details of a senior position. she will be able to focus on what she was doing a good job of in georgia, be able to spend her personal time, and also be able to balance that time. as she pointed out, she and her husband have been struggling with this for 45 years. she has children and grandchildren she wants to spend time with. it is perfectly understandable. i do not want anybody to think that she cannot be of significant help here. i believe she can. that is why i offered her the opportunities that i did, but i think this might be a better fit for her, and i think she will be able to devote the time, attention and passion that she wants. >> how much time are you looking to take off? any thoughts on what you want your future collaboration to be?
5:37 pm
>> you know, as far as my role with the department, that will be strictly up to the secretary, and i think he is looking at getting that reported before we can discuss it, so i have no idea p.m. how long that will take. -- no idea how long that will take. that does not mean i will not be speaking out. i have had many requests from around the country from people who want to hear from me. i would like to hear from them, because i would like to know -- i would like to hear about efforts that are being made in communities that are dealing with the issue of racism and discrimination, and i would really like to highlight them, because i know that there are people out there who care, the want to work on the issues, who are working on the issues. i think we need more of that. i think we need to hear those stories as we move forward. that is what this country needs.
5:38 pm
we are a great country, and there are people who care. we hear too much from those who would want to point that the negative right now, and i really would like to concentrate on the positive. >> what was the exact role, the exact position and the duties therein, and were you tempted to take it? >> yes, i was tempted to take it. i am not sure of the total role, and the secretary can speak more to that than i can at this point. i was tempted. >> the office of the outreach advocacy was created by the congress to do work that needs to be done in usda to make sure that people understand and appreciate what programs usda offers and how to access them. as i think her work in georgia pointed out, there are an awful
5:39 pm
lot of people who have no idea how broad the scope of this department is, and often because of the poverty or the difficulties of managing government said the local level, oftentimes they're overwhelmed by the application process, by that federal bureaucracy that they have to work through. the idea of this office working with our civil rights office was to do a better job integrating with those communities making sure that they understood what was available and had access to the programs. there are probably counties that have it not had access to the programs for precisely the reason that we created these programs. what surely would have done -- shirley would have done what has oversee this effort. i think-she will be able to focus our time and dig deeper if
5:40 pm
she had administrative responsibilities, which is what she would have had as a senior executive. >> if you spoke to anyone at the white house, can you tell us to it was? >> i did not speak to anyone at the white house. as i said earlier, this was my responsibility. i had to take full responsibility for it. i continue to take full responsibility for it. i will take it for as long as i live. this was -- you know, i pride myself on the work that i do. i know that i disappointed the president. i disappointed this administration. a disappointed the country. i disappointed suhirley. i have to live with that. i accept that responsibility. that is what happens when you have this kind of position. my hope is that despite the challenges we have seen and what
5:41 pm
she had to go through, maybe, maybe this is an opportunity for the country to have the kind of conversation that she thinks we ought to have. maybe this will put a spotlight on not only this incident, but maybe there will also be a spotlight on the efforts usda is making in the area of civil rights, is trying to solvents subtle -- trying to solve and settle cases that have been open for almost 20 years. and we're trying to reopen cases the were denied access and review in previous years. we're trying to engage in a cultural transformation so that our work force is as modernized endeavors as the country. we're engaged in trying to get the programs of the usda to the people who are the most in need, not necessarily the best connected, but the most in need. to me, if we are going to make anything out of this, apart from her circumstances, that is what i have to do. that is what i am committed to
5:42 pm
doing. i am very serious about this. i came into this office committed to trying to close the chapter of civil rights that has been a difficult chapter for usda and a very sordid chapter. we one resolution, and that -- this unfortunate circumstance has a lease given us the opportunity to have that conversation with the nation. if there is personal pain i have to endure for that, i am happy to do that if we get the conversation started. >> a few weeks ago you said you were going to visue blogger andrew bleightbart. >> i really do not want to discuss that at this time. i do think a lawsuit will be forthcoming, but i do not want to discuss it at this time. >> i think that about wraps it up. [applause]
5:43 pm
>> florida is among four states voting today. we will hear of victory and concession speeches from the republican and democratic candidate in the race for u.s. senate seat there. our coverage starts tonight at 8:03 p.m. eastern, live on c- span. at 11:00 p.m. eastern, the focus is on arizona, where incumbent senator john mccain is battling former house member j.d. hayworth for the republican nomination. we are your home for all 2010 election coverage. >> up next, the brookings institution host a panel discussion on u.s. strategy in afghanistan. participants include a former afghani ambassador to the u.s., as well as the author of a book
5:44 pm
on the u.s. involvement in afghanistan, the russian involvement in the country, and the september 11th attacks. this is about 90 minutes. >> thank you for joining us in the dog days of aaugust. we're joined by an overflow audience in the next room. we have assembled today again to discuss the subject of afghanistan, we have labeled internally "the great afghanistan debate part 3." the question we're going to discuss today is, will u.s.
5:45 pm
strategy succeed? i am the director of the program at brookings. we have a very distinguished and experienced panel to discuss this question and related questions. i will introduce them all, and then ask each one of them a very open-ended question to get us going, and we will have a conversation appear between the four panelists before we come to you the audience for questions. we are delighted to be joined this morning by the gentleman on my right to is a senior adviser to ambassador richard holbrooke, who in turn is the president's special counselor on afghanistan and pakistan.
5:46 pm
he is a professor of international politics at the french school of law and diplomacy at tufts university. as a specialist on south asia and the middle east. he is the author of several wonderful and fascinating books, in particular, "the rise of islamic capitalism," and, " democracy in iraq." he has written for the op-ed pages of many major newspapers, and we're very glad to have the opportunity to hear him today. also are joined by a distinguished visitor on my far left.
5:47 pm
he retired as chairman of the pakistan a joint chiefs and chief of staff in october 1998. since then, he has served as special envoy to european capitals in 2002, and served as pakistan's ambassador to the united states from 2004-2006. he has since then been active in a whole range of track to dialogue, especially between india and pakistan and pakistan and the united states. he participates in a number of think tanks and research institutes, and he heads a research based consultancy called spearhead research. on my left is steve cole,
5:48 pm
president of the new american foundation and a contributor to "new yorker" magazine. he was a foreign correspondent and senior editor of "the washington post." he is the author of six books, including most recently, "the stores: the secret history of the cia, afghanistan and osama bin laden." his professional awards include two pulitzer prizes, the first for a series of articles on the ook, the second for his buc which also won several
5:49 pm
additional awards. he has a list of other awards as well. he graduated from occidental college in 1980 with a degree in english and history. finally, our very on director of research and foreign policy, and senior fellow of the 21st century defense initiative a brookings. mike is a prolific writer, analyst and contributor to the public policy debate. he is a visiting lecturer at princeton, an adjunct professor at johns hopkins, and has written so many books that it would take all of the time we have to list them, but his latest ones, particularly pertinent to today's discussion
5:50 pm
about afghanistan include a recent book on budgeting for war. he is now working on a book about nuclear weapons policy, and he is the principal researcher for our indexes on iraq, pakistan and afghanistan. so, as you can see, we are honored to have a very distinguished panel. i went to start by asking if you could give us your sense of whether -- first of all, what the strategy is. let's try to get that out in clear terms, and how you view it in terms of whether you feel that it is succeeding or not. >> thank you. it is a pleasure being here.
5:51 pm
let's begin by sort of outline the way in which we think about this afghanistan/pakistan strategy. the core notion is that these two components have to work together. we have to be effective in both places, and the reason for that is that the issue that has brought the united states to that region of that world straddles the boundary of these two states, and you cannot have a solution and one without a solution and the other. it is also very clear that the pakistan were to collapse into a situation that existed 8 -- that if afghanistan were to collapse into the situation that existed before, it would be perilous for pakistan. conversely, if pakistan were to face a serious threat because of ratheeither
5:52 pm
natural disasters or other causes, it would make it almost impossible to be in afghanistan. the u.s. strategy is one that encompasses both countries, all the elements are not the same in both. in afghanistan, they have a military presence on the ground. the core idea behind the strategy is to leverage u.s. and military presence to create time afghanace for standing uppe security forces and state institution so that they can take over the security for most of the country and would then provide room to the united states to, if you would, reduce its combat footprint on the ground. in pakistan, our strategy has been multifaceted, in fact, some ways much more complex of strengthening and deepening u.s. a/pakistan relations as a context for doing everything you
5:53 pm
want to do and salvation. -- due in itself asia. to that end, -- do in south asia. to that end, the u.s. has begun a strategic conversation. having said that, this is a multi-faceted strategy relying on many different tentacles. some are specific to afghanistan. some are specific to pakistan. some are region-wide. there is a different tempo, and different metrics associated with these different elements. in afghanistan we are still just about seeing the full implementation of the additional
5:54 pm
troops and that were committed to afghanistan. we had a change of command on the ground when general petraeus took over, but many elements of the strategy are only beginning to have an impact. there we have a concerted civilian and military push to get the different pieces together. in pakistan in some ways, we have had more success, largely because this is a government to government engagement. our impact been assisting pakistan deals with some civilian issues. it is not a matter of management of u.s. military and civilians in the ground. essentially the call has been to change the direction and shape and nature of the u.s./pakistan relations. that has become quite palatable. obviously we are dealing with
5:55 pm
the impact of a long neglect of that relationship over a long period of time, essentially since the leaving of the afghanistan in 1989. i always say, overall, we are doing well. the strategy is still moving forward. in the area where i concentrate most, on pakistan, we are seeing the impact of our effort to change the relationship. >> talk a little bit about the impact of the floods, this terrible humanitarian disaster, on your overall strategy. >> just looking at the numbers, this is a horrendous event. the size of the territory under water is larger than italy. more people are affected than the population of new york
5:56 pm
state. the country not only has millions of people who have been displaced, about 20 million people have been displaced, but an enormous amount of pressure is brought to bear on the rest of the country as refugees moved from one place to the next and have to be taken care of. it has but a lot of pressure on on the ground governance in pakistan. a reconstruction is going to be difficult going forward. what pakistan needs in order to deal with the immediate impact of the flood is that it has lost a good share of its export crops, a good share of its food, which makes an enormous impact on poverty issues, on imports/exports, and the sheer damage to infrastructure. several hundred bridges have been washed away. water canals have been damaged
5:57 pm
or are being deliberately broken in order to manage the water. all of these are issues the pakistan faces, and obviously, we are very concerned about the long run impact on institutions, governments, and stability and pakistan. the way in which the united states has reacted in some ways goes to the importance of the strategy that it could have played. namely, the u.s. was able to react very quickly, largely because of the interagency teams that it has put together, especially in the office of the special representative, which has made for much more rapid turnaround to addressing these kinds of issues. much was cobbled together to address the refugee issues after the swap operations last year.
5:58 pm
-- swat preparations last year. also, the u.s. was very cognizant of convincing pakistan and pakistan is and that there is a strategic partnerships that would best exemplified by the way the united states was first and most effective among all other members of the international community, including bachus done's other) -- including pakistan does so other close friends -- pakistan 's other close friends. it is an occasion that the united states has risen to appropriately, but that does not mean that the challenges gone. it requires working with pakistan very closely and
5:59 pm
minimizing the impact of the flood. >> general, thank you for joining us this morning. i wonder if you could give us a bachus steny -- a pakistan perspective on these two issues. one is the striking figure in the recent research poll that 6 in at 10 people and pakistan the to the united states -- vehiiew the united states as the enemy. the second fact of like you to help explain is the confusion on the part of americans who
6:00 pm
watched as an unfolding that pakistan seems to be playing both sides in terms of working with the united states, but also maintaining an ambiguous relationship with the taliban, which is our joint enemy. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. what happens or does not happen in afghanistan is hugely important for pakistan. a stable afghanistan becomes
6:01 pm
extremely important for pakistan. and as we see this strategy which vali outlined unfolding in afghanistan, we see it moving on a separate track. it is so important for us, and i think without going into the evolutionary process through which we have reached the present strategy, we need to look at what the u.s. is doing in afghanistan. that would like the ability to take care of themselves so that other forces do not have to do that. we want an economy in afghanistan which can create and work in that country.
6:02 pm
we want political governance to include and had a net cash ability to take care of such questions in afghanistan. we are supportive of that. and reintegration, we are supportive of that and we're working with the u.s. to bring that about, more than afghan initiative than what the u.s. is talking about, but so that it comes together, and pakistan is supportive of that to end the violence which is impacting us hugely. and the military track has had success, and we see the u.s.
6:03 pm
strategy for a particular situation, helmand, which is good and pakistan has been supporting that. overall, i do not see a major or even a minor difference of opinion in pakistan over the way things are going in afghanistan. and pakistan would very much like that it stabilizes as soon as possible in its own interests. vali has outlined the u.s. strategy in pakistan which is perhaps less clear, but -- but from our point of view, the u.s. is helping pakistan stabilize, develop capacity, political, economic, security, to face the threats that it faces at the
6:04 pm
moment. of course the u.s. has been doing this over a period of time, which are there in terms of billions of dollars coming to pakistan from the u.s., and the u.s. is heavily in support of a pakistan government to take care of the blood, and martin pose the question of why the u.s. is them popular -- is unpopular in pakistan. i guess it depends on who you are talking to and how much they are aware of the intricacies of the u.s.-pakistan relationship, the many ways in which the two countries are interacting, in which the u.s. is supporting pakistan. i do not think many people in pakistan are aware that the
6:05 pm
financial institutions open and pakistan, with the imf for the world bank for others, is due to the relationship with the u.s.. and in my opinion, what happens between pakistan and the u.s., the positive side does not come up in the media. the negative side comes up in the media in discussions. and that takes over the whole discussion of u.s.-pakistan relations. and i think that is writing the opinion that the u.s. is not popular in afghanistan -- in pakistan. the other question which martin difficult one,re pakistan having a sort of double policy, one of supporting the
6:06 pm
u.s. and its interests, and the other of having its own interests. of course pakistan has its own interests and concerns. but with pakistan, we forget that there is a past, present, and the future. and we can to muddle it all together and come to the conclusion that pakistan is doing this. pakistan had a strategy and had nothing to do with the present. the present has not even involved from what it was doing at that time. there was a period when pakistan bought it was in its interests that it had to project across its borders to take care of that
6:07 pm
that it faced from those borders. that situation has changed. there was such a strategy that was unthinkable. pakistan with so many intricate linkages with the united states is not in a position to follow any kind of -- play any kind of double game there. i read articles were unnamed officials are talking about doing this for doing that, but they're no authoritative sources for this. there's nothing on the table with which you're making this determination. some had been in contact with the taliban. who else is going to be in contact with a talent and -- with the taliban.
6:08 pm
it may be helping the u.s. in resolving some of issues with the taliban and moving toward reconciliation, integration, or what ever you want to call it. this factor will become more and more important. the last point i would like to make is that whenever you make of pakistan's ambitions in the past, they have been scaled down drastically, outside and within the country. the fact that becomes most important to pakistan today is the economy a pakistan. policies will revolve around making that recovery, were lost, and making it sustainable. >> thank you. we will come back to some of those issues but i wanted to get
6:09 pm
steve the focus for a moment on afghanistan and our strategies there. you're short but trenchant critique of the strategy suggests that it was based on shaky assumptions, one was that the afghan government was stable enough, and that the taliban will be prepared to break with al qaeda, if you would say that there would be some kind of political reconciliation after blows to the taliban on the battlefield. i wonder how you view u.s. strategy at the moment and whether you are still concerned about those assumptions. >> i am not sure about the second of those two assumptions, been the linchpin of my argument, but i would like to to thank you for having me
6:10 pm
here today and including me in this chance to think with you about these subjects. very briefly about the afghan setting and imitate someone vali was saying. and some of what general karamat was saying as well. my concern all along in evaluating the u.s. international strategy in afghanistan has been the extent to which it is adequately cognizant of afghan politics as those politics are recognized by afghans. in shorthand, the strategy in afghanistan is comparable to the one that is now being executed in iraq, to build up afghan security forces that can take the lead in combat gradually over the next two to three years to allow nato forces to exit that costly combat role but they are playing and to perhaps remain in a supporting role,
6:11 pm
providing the afghan security forces with a monopoly on technology and air power and other sources of effectiveness. we see and iraq now a dilemma in which we have successfully built up iraqi security forces that are increasingly capable to stand alone. but what government are the loyal to? in iraq, that question is still at issue. the security forces have been quite patient with iraqi politicians as they fail to create a government to which the security forces can be loyal. if my concern in afghanistan is that there is not enough political resilience for a mismatch between security forces and national unity politics. my concern about the way political strategy
6:12 pm
has been executed in afghanistan is that it has been powered- focused and has not been able to bring in the regional stakeholders' if required to build national unity in afghanistan. the afghan you referred to in the "new republic," trying to outline the imperative of a strategy of national unity, political unity in afghanistan in order to create to resilience to build security forces and to consider the possibilities of reconciliation, strategic negotiations with the taliban. i do not begin the afghan bali politick rigid body politick can do this unless it approaches the negotiations in a position of true unity. if the taliban become a magnet for political wedge in politics, then the rest risk -- the risk to the return of 1990's is significant. that is my political view in
6:13 pm
afghanistan. on pakistan, i wanted to go back to the question you asked about the ambiguity of pakistan's security institutions in iraq, and to say that i respect what was said about the difference between the past, the present, and the future. that is the right framework to evaluated again. you cannot wish away the past. it does include the pakistan strategy of hedging for the militias that were either believed to be loyal to the pakistan in state or manageable in some way. that complex buildup in afghanistan and now has in some extent turned against the state and they're paying a high price in battling those elements of the complex that it earlier nurtured that turned against it. at the same time, what is complex is that some of those elements, they are an inevitable
6:14 pm
part of a political settlement in afghanistan. it would be natural to ask whether the pakistan states is prepared to give up its relationship there, its access to those potential elements of the settlement, and then secondly we have to take into account let, particularly in account of this flooding. they grew up in kashmir primarily, and its status as of particular import because it is rooted in the south and has been gaining traction in southern punjab, which has been badly affected by the flood. the question would be to ask
6:15 pm
whether as partners with the state of pakistan, the pakistan military, as a prisoner of generous aid -- provisioners of generous aid, is that pakistan the state doing everything it could reasonably be asked to do to contain and breakdown the historic legacy of its relationship with these groups? is it doing everything it could be reasonably ask to do? and i would say two things about the answer to that question. it is obvious there is that this agreement about the answer to that question within the united states government. some people think absolutely yes. they are taking on the chin. we do not see everything that one would wish but they are doing everything one could reasonably ask them to do. the others are saying, no, i do not things up. -- that to not think so. they are undermining the
6:16 pm
american project in afghanistan and threatening regional stability. that question is doubly difficult because as general, karamat, thisral care m is no way to measure. >> you have just come back from afghanistan, michael. you advised general and now you're working with general petreaus. what is your take on how the strategy is working, and i preface this by saying you have a piece in the latest issue of "foreign affairs," were you tough about that it will work if we can stay the course. i wonder if you could just say specifically -- address some of
6:17 pm
steve's concerns about afghanistan and pakistan. >> thanks, martin, and thanks to all of you to being here and to my co-authors, one of them help me write this book as a remarkable story of courage and honor to burn their ship. in an i think what i would want to say is that 2010 has certainly, even for those of us to cause optimists, gone more slowly in terms of progress on the strategy then we would have hoped. there was certainly hope, not an expectation, but i hope in certain parts of the nato command that 2010 which show a clear shift in momentum across afghanistan, or is the aggregate set of trends. in a positive direction. they're not too many people say that. general petreaus did voice, and i thought it was appropriate and
6:18 pm
necessary and overdue in some ways, optimism about certain parts of afghanistan in his recent flurry of interviews when he talked about helmand province. he got into rhetorical or an academic nod because we expected such great things in this one little town of march oja. the army created such expectations and in progress there was slower than we had hoped. the impression is that helmand is not going that well. marja is a small part of helmand, and every other town in central helmand is actually doing better than marja. some are not going as well but generally speaking, as petreaus correctly _, we are seeing some progress there.
6:19 pm
does it really address the question of whether we have a strategic partner in president karzai and whether we can use the current government as reflecting a enough of a consensus among afghans to be a basis for moving forward? steve always has the right and tough questions and i do not have quite as positive and overall bottom line there. i remain hopeful but i do not know. i would explain my reason for hopefulness without trying to disagree with steve, because i share his concerns. instead of putting too much emphasis on karzai, let's think about the afghan people. they are adamantly anti-taliban. the only support in a taliban is among the past tense -- pashtun, and only a tiny sliver of them
6:20 pm
agree with them, and more are afraid of them. how do we change that perspective? that is more a limited problem that we see in other insurgencies around the world where there's a fundamental desire to overturn the existing political order. in afghanistan, we do not see that. people are generally supportive of a central government and president karzai, despite all of his words and what happened in the election campaign last year and the actor perception that many of his cronies are corrupt, off a general belief that nato is there to help, and we do not see anti-americanism in afghanistan that we saw either in iraq or still see in pakistan. if it is a population more supportive of nato's presence there. and martin, i wish that i could rebut steve, but we have
6:21 pm
partners that are interested in committed to working with us and working with each other. one more point about the afghan army, they on balance are a very promising institution. people talk about fissures between generals, for example, and there are efforts to address that. some are over represented. they are primarily in minorities, primarily northern alliance, the initial resistance against the taliban and they are about 40% of the army even though they are 50% of the population. the army is not showing sectarian or at that -- ethnic fisher's. there are problems in recruiting pashtuns from the south.
6:22 pm
but as an institution, in terms of his performance in the field, it is well ahead of where the iraqi army was in 2004 or 2005. it is not contributing to a sectarian war. it is doing a much better job in trying to tamp down that tension. and let me give a couple of factoids and then i will stop. these and not definitive or conclusive proof this that the afghan army or the country in general is going in the right direction, but here are a couple of reasons to be a bit more hopeful than some people have been. i think we need a balanced debate, not necessarily as an optimist rebutting up pessimist, but just a more balanced set of understandings of what the facts are. by now we have 80%-9% at afghan army units in the field better counter-partnered with a nato
6:23 pm
unit. this never happened until general mcchrystal. it something that he accomplished in afghanistan. even after basic training, even after unit training, the afghan army unit then goes out into the field and they are based next to a nato counterpart in and of roughly comparable size. some places than a unit may be larger or smaller, but it is within one step up or down of size relative to the afghan unit it is deployed with. and they live together, they plan to gather the patrol together, they fight together. when they are and bush, the nato soldiers call in air force and reinforcements of that the afghan army as a chance to survive these firefights in the way they never could before. maybe i will stop there because it is a vivid point. partnering is too mealy mouthed
6:24 pm
of a word for what is going on in the field. there is an apprenticeships going on. there are a lot of cady odds of what i'm saying the people need to appreciate what is going on in the field. >> you wanted to come in here, but if you could also speak to steve's point about the broader reconciliation, a much different political groupings and leadership in afghanistan. >> the point is well taken. whenever you want and have the survival of the civilian institutions, they have to be representative of the entire population. you never want to have civilian institutions the way they developed because of fracture. we're cognizant that when you have of for agile institution that are growing, there is
6:25 pm
always a danger that wedge issues could threaten them and that is something we have to remain vigilant. there are some fundamental differences in the kind of problems we face in iraq as opposed to afghanistan, because afghanistan as a political leadership that did not assume power -- where is says iraq -- whereas in iraq, the problems are producing the leadership themselves. the picture is obviously changing. there is no formal reconciliation. there is president karzai initiating a piece jirga, and what happens next whether or not there is any kind of effective
6:26 pm
reintegration would be decided later. on the other side of the issue about pakistan, in afghanistan we are trying to build government capability. in pakistan, the problems should be to prevent that from eroding. particularly the danger of the floods, although the engagement with the flood is for humanitarian reasons, but the impact is on local governments and that things we're trying to build in afghanistan. the floods had been washing away this and pakistan. we're dealing with a country of
6:27 pm
175 million people and also with a legacy since 1989 of relations with pakistan that have gone in the wrong direction. every pakistan knows senator pressler, and no american knows him. and that looms fairly large and pakistan thinking on what we call it trust gap in the u.s.. we have to deal with that. we have to set this relationship right going forward to sustain pakistan. we have to deal with that. we are intensifying our engagement with the regions of the world which was by and large on the periphery in u.s. policy in the middle east and south asia prolonged period of time. we cannot cover poll -- the whole space that is required in
6:28 pm
short order, but if you were to say that our engagement and pakistan over the past year has gone significant measures in trying to convince pakistanis that this is not a fly by night engagement, that we will address their issues and we are their friends at the flood shows, that we do care about them as americans, not as the american government, if the people caring about the suffering of other people that are rolling to rise up to the occasion and we would like another sort of road full word that would turn the relationship of was by and large a transactional relationship into a strategic relationship, and i would say that been we have made progress. if this is an ongoing effort and the people -- the picture is changing rapidly. the pot this town of the past year since i have been working has gone through an enormous amount of peaks and troughs.
6:29 pm
a year ago there was talk that if the government collapsed before the taliban on sloth reaching 70 kilometers from islamabad, there was eternal civil war with complicated issues that steve pointed at, economic integrity of the economy still a challenge by water and electricity shortages and now the flood has completely turned the society and economy upside down. all those are factors here. the important factors in our relationship and there are also important challenges to the pakistan government. they're looking forward in terms of stability in the region. they are also looking at a measure of this. i do not see this as a black- and-white. the measure would have at 100%
6:30 pm
change, but we have embarked on a policy of serious engagement, and given the issues raised on pakistan, in terms of advancing our goals of impacting pakistan's du of this relationship with us, we have moved forward. and we're still in 16% approval rating, which is abysmal, in a country that we would like to think of as a close ally, but that is double what it was. [laughter] it's a significant improvement. >> it is the glass half full. please come in on this, general, but also steve has put the issue of the let on the table.
6:31 pm
tell us how pakistan views let, which four americans is looming as the largest perhaps that we had imagined before. >> i do not speak for the government, of course, but in giving my opinion and steve ask a very important question and is -- he is right. there is a divide that i sense on this question. is pakistan doing everything that it could be asked to do? is it actually hedging? my short answer to that is that without the unraveling of the state and without creating an internal chaos within pakistan, pakistan is doing everything possible to support the u.s. strategy in afghanistan and to work things out with india.
6:32 pm
why i am saying this is that in each of the tracks that be identified your strategy moving in afghanistan, there massive uncertainties. -- there are massive uncertainties. it is still on the table. there are historic attrition rates as high as 48% in the courses of building up afghanistan. we want those forces to be built up but right now there is a question mark. there is uncertainty on many of the things that steve talked about, the ability to bring about unity in the government's and to balance it, and those are the uncertainties that we will have to live with because we and
6:33 pm
our afghanistan's neighbors. there is even uncertainty on the military strategy which will result in a victory or not. it is moving well, as i said, but that casualty figures are high, higher than expected, and there are zero some disappointments, so there is uncertainty there. one reconciliation, yes, there is uncertainty. with the taliban, home and be part of the government? will they be expected or will they continue to be an imbalance. these are the uncertainties that pakistan has to live with. pakistan is doing everything possible to support the u.s. strategy in afghanistan. the other point is that there
6:34 pm
was enormous opposition to any commitment of the pakistan military into its western border areas. today, nobody is saying anything against the military operations which have been gone into the western border areas, swat and the other areas. we did not rush things. we waited for public opinion to change and his change was the taliban was identified anti- state and its people who commit atrocities and who are for political power -- the moment this became known, the opinion change and the people are generally supportive of the military campaign into fata.
6:35 pm
>> can i and erupt you on the point? how they support operations in the west where they expect the army will support its kind of operations? is that going to divert attention? is that going to delayed the expected campaign in north waziristan? >> yes, of course it is. it is the main agency tackling the flood. it has devoted around 70,000 troops to disaster relief, and most of the limited aviation assets will be used in the west are diverted to disaster relief. flood situation is going to have of political, economic, and security impact.
6:36 pm
the economic impact is going to be the worst and could possibly take years for pakistan to recover from that. once the flood waters recede and the civilian agencies to cover, the military will be free to give back to its duties. perhaps the gains that the military has made in the west and not. pilos because it is quite capable of holding and protecting against any kind of threat, but some of the offensive operations which may have been plan are likely to be delayed. it is a dan coming up in the context of the flood militant organizations are getting out relief duties. they must live in those areas and they would very much like to get into the public and gain support and sympathy and make inroads, but this capacity is
6:37 pm
to dishing out of things here and there. this is a national disaster. they need helicopters, military troops, hovercraft, everything that we use. they have nothing like that. >> steve, feel free to come in, and at this point. the question on whether to shift -- if you like added that before we go to the audience. how does president obama's timetable affect calculations with the local effort, the order to withdraw troops next summer and to review the strategy this december? how does that play into the calculations of the various parties we have been talking about? >> it has been a significant factor although i do think that general petreaus has had a countervailing effect of the last couple of months.
6:38 pm
in economics, you have the concept of discounting for future events. it will lead in market prices a day, we would assume that the wisdom of crowds will discount the possibility of future inflation or a future recession. the impact of the 2011 date was to cause actors on the ground to discount nato's's departure and the start hedging. i think general karamat refer to the possibilities even before you referred to a particular time line in a series of on certain projects. it would have been reasonable cause to hedge against uncertainty. the day to cause that hedging to increase in pace and intensity. that is not limited to the government pakistan, that is everybody, including a lot of actors inside afghanistan and other regional governments and so forth.
6:39 pm
i think the president and general petreaus have done as much as they possibly could to wall back the fact that they have created by naming that date. to some extent now, there is more stability about the timeline, the perception of the timeline, then there was six months ago. i was in afghanistan in april and there was a great deal of uncertainty about where things were going and why at what pace. and i think things have settled down this summer. a lot will depend -- there is an understanding that we're talking about a transition that will last from 2011 poured 2015. someplace in the timeline. general petreaus is advising about the pace of that transformation, and it is politically untouchable in the united states in most circumstances. barring some catastrophic set of events in afghanistan by the sudden collapse of the american strategy there, the timeline is
6:40 pm
now more luster. there is still some hedging going on. but less than before. >> i agree with steve that the administration is doing a little better job of trying to explain its strategy, but i think it would help to have an explicit statement by the president of what his thinking is. and i am not suggesting that he take away any and all ambiguity on his policy. i think he deliberately wants the flexibility about what to do next summer and what i interpret his thinking to bb, from all the comments received from the administration is especially for him, it that he does intend if things are going well to have a gradual conditioned-based andover to the afghans over a period of years, but he reserves the right to reassess should the strategy not be succeeding, and go to a minimalist plan be along the lines of the counter- terrorism specific approach with your u.s. forces and a less ambitious goal for afghanistan that we know is some people in
6:41 pm
his administration were devising him to adopt last fall when they oppose the troop increase. at that the president should set up following. i intend and i hope for a gradual condition-based plan. he never said that. they so that, mullen said that, clinton says that, gates says that -- the president does not like to say that. the most robust said -- things he said was that we're not turning off the lights next july. i would expect a stronger statement from the commander in chief. he can preserve his leverage and coverage with the democratic congress and saying that it will take three or four years to phase out. frankly, if it does not work out, we will probably leave faster. and i reserve the right as president to make that call. i think that kind of statement
6:42 pm
would be more productive for most of the audience is listening to him and the extreme discretion bordering on a policy of the liver confusion that i think he has sometimes adopted. i understand the strategic logic behind his thinking. i do not think his approach is maximized his own benefit to the current policy. >> thank you. let's go to the audience for question. tw of things to a reminder you need to identify yourself and you need to have a question mark at the end of your sentence. right down the back there from philadelphia. >> trudy rubin. i like to ask the pakistan question. the civilian government has been unable to build in the areas that the pakistan military cleared even before the flood.
6:43 pm
i'm wondering now that since there are so many new areas which would desperately need building, who is going to do this building? and if the military is called on, does that mean as it led the fight against insurgency in -- does the fight against insurgency halt, or is the civilian government capable of coordinating with international agencies which does not appear to be the case? and one further question along that line. internal stability -- the number of inter-sectarian killings is rising sharply with the civil war in karachi between factions, many are being blown up. is the social fabric which was already under great threat going to be stressed even much more dramatically by this flooding
6:44 pm
with government ineptitude? if so, then what? >> let me first of all say that the issue of the government response to the flood in pakistan is not quite as it appears on the outside. first of all, the number of deaths are not as high as they were because of the evacuation plans, particularly as we move toward southern punjab, were carried out quite effectively. the southern area that we felt would be over run with a tremendous amount of damage -- that has not happened because the affected building and embankments and also releasing the water out. the issue is not that the government has completely failed. the focus has been largely a national government in pakistan, whereas the most important element in management of unfolding of the disaster and its early response and as we go
6:45 pm
forward, is local government. and the water set forth the local government to pack up its bags and moved to a refugee camp, otherwise they have worked well. the north is a very different place than pan job. the local governments are quite different. the capacities and capabilities are quite different. just the way the blood is being managed is quite different than it was in the northwest frontier. i am not convinced that we could just take it for granted that the government will be completely absent or incapable here in the military has to do everything. and also in the northwest, the main area of construction came up in swat. that has to do in the way in
6:46 pm
which the taliban ran swat before they were dislodged. it remained a war zone, were as southern punjab are not a war zone. there many elements that can be brought to bear. whether there are other political issues that might be put into pakistan, this disaster in and of itself is probably most significant pressure on pakistan society and economy at a humanitarian level. how the international community access is the immediate need will be far more indicative of how quickly pakistan can regroup the social and political crises out there. and there is a great deal of indication that the country has
6:47 pm
come together around this issue. we do not see the floods as breaking up into political factions. there are continued attacks with the bombing of a mosque in the northwest area in the tribal regions, with 30 people killed. there will be continued acts of violence and extremists are operating on an different agenda, but others have come together and they're facing the same problem, the same set of challenges, and for now the flood has had a unifying impact. >> do you want to add to that? >> i think vali is doing a great job. >> thank you. complement's and pakistan. >> my experience in these disasters is that the government, regardless of what they're doing, always gets
6:48 pm
criticized. whether it is katrina or tsunami. they get the criticism for not responding quickly or not doing enough. comparing the western border, there is a difference as he pointed out, that the civil agencies had difficulty operating in the western areas because it is an ongoing situation. the military became the lead agency not only for clearing the area but was actually in the process of rehabilitating that area and moving back when these floods hit. that is different. in the rest of the country, it is going to be easier once the waters recede, which we are told is likely to happen in two weeks yourself. then it will be more economic assistance and taking care of
6:49 pm
epidemics and things like that which they are getting enormous international support for, and i think they will be above the handle that. in terms of security which you talked about, that is a huge problem. if you remember in the 1990's, there was the famous case and then it stabilized. it is going to affect and may end in sectarian violence. we had these assassinations taking place, but still causing enormous damage in terms of loss of life. and the government is trying to get over that situation. >> let's take one from the back, the gentleman in the blue striped shirt. chicken my name is tom wolfson.
6:50 pm
i have served in islamabad and spent some time in afghanistan more recently. i have two questions. first, for steve, in terms of local afghan governance and what we have labeled, a lot of former warlords have come back and establish themselves and are running the same kind of networks they did before, bringing a measure of stability to their area and effective administration and and now getting support for that, and that is a trade-off in the long- term interest of trying to build what is good for afghan society or are there present contribution such that they really cannot be dispensed with? i am wondering your views on how bad off boston bargain -- a
6:51 pm
faustian bargain that is. i was wondering what they have not done has been seen through the complicated prison of the strategic political relationship with india. i do not want to suggest that the indian problem has gone away in or change significantly, but i was wondering that you are now no longer an army officer, how can did you would care to be on how the thinking within the pakistan army might have changed in terms of being mesmerized by the indian threat? thank you. >> the observations are certainly endorsed in the sense that there has been an obvious trade-off in american engagement in afghanistan since the fall of the taliban between security and the pursuit of stabilizing politics, the expedient pursued
6:52 pm
of security particularly between 2002-2007. that generally prevailed. the analysis was engaged in another war during most of the years. one of the ways they got away with the threadbare approach to the country was developed expedient relations have with former warlords and turn politics over to them in some areas. it is up faustian bargain and very difficult to unravel a bargain like that and still live. in the context of even ambitious counterinsurgency campaign. i would only say to go back to my drumbeating about the importance of afghan politics, is to say a successful inclusive approach to afghan politics during the transition period ahead, one that has a prayer of success, requires vision of
6:53 pm
national unity but also a response to the dilemma that you described, that is, more inclusive local politics. it is stunning when you travel around afghanistan to appreciate how top down local administration remains and governors come and go, exiled in favor with the palace or americans, show up around from province to province. the operation in kandahar was suspended in part because they got to the edge of the campaign that they intended in realize they did not have all plausible inclusive and successful local political strategy to complement their military plans. i actually admire the decision not to go forward in recognition of that, because there -- you shuras just make local chi
6:54 pm
up as you go along, which i think was the plan before that. that is out this bargain will be measured by the afghan people. >> general. >> cast. kashmir, i would not say that we do not consider india a threat anymore. that threat is still there. but the obsession with that threat in terms of premeditated, deliberate attack on pakistan, i think that has receded into the background. the endemic backs for india and pakistan has become extremely important. -- the economic facts for a&e
6:55 pm
and pakistan have become extremely poor. pakistan has been taking a good, hard, and would look at itself. it is looking a stability, economic decline, and under those circumstances is policy is to work on threat production through diplomacy, dialogue, all non-military means of vatican focus his energy on his internal stability. -- said that it can focus its energy on its sinternal stability. >> another question about corruption within the palace. you had some strong views on this issue and what we're doing wrong and what we should do right about that. >> and that they could in passing mention on the question of the indian threat, steve: finishing him book will have an
6:56 pm
event here and i certainly invite all of you to be here on october 7. on the corruption issue, this is such a complex matter and is there afghan friend pushed back recently whenever we criticize them too much for corruption. if that one out that we are part of the problem. everyone who is criticizing the other is correct about how this is work. i think that there are some americans but not too many who are personally corrupt. the system that we have built is not very effective. in my trip in may in afghanistan, i was disturbed by how many nato officials were not even on the same page about what the strategy should be room for confronting this. the specific issue that i felt i had some understanding of, and this is only one element of the broader afghan corruption problem, but the way in which our military deployment in the south depends on certain afghan contractors and strongman this proportionally.
6:57 pm
well have done is in the interest of trying to meet the deployment schedule set out by the president. we have rushed. one of the ways you rush is by working with people you already know. that means that you pump more money into the same hands who are already benefiting from the system. therefore to the exclusion of many other afghan tribes and leaders who are not of the karzai family pacifically around kandahar. we need to retrain the issue a little bit. we will not eliminate corruption in afghanistan but we need to review our presence providing patronage which needs to be better distributed and more equitable. if some of that is corruption, then we have to distinguish between different types of corruption. some types are regrettable and tolerable, and others actually in for it -- fuel the insurgency
6:58 pm
and that is what troubles me. you put -- all of your money into a couple of people's hands, you make others have said and they are more likely to support the insurgency. i don't think there has been enough to see what to do about this. you need to broaden the base of those who benefit. that is easier said than done, but it was not even commonly recognized as a core element of what our strategy should be going forward among all the different people that i spoke to in may. i think that there had been progress since then, but i think we're still behind the curve. >> let's take another question. the lady here in purple. >> i am from the "virus times," and now like to ask mr. coll -- "irish times,"and i would
6:59 pm
like to ask mr.: mr. hamlin. was president obama providing himself with an alibi in advance by saying -- he could not say i gave you what u.s. 4, it has not worked, now we're getting a. is that a proper reading of what has happened? and you talk about the different perceptions in the pentagon and the white house of the war in afghanistan. is there a certain tension there between vice-president by the end -- vice president biden's strategy of using drones and others, and are we headed for confrontation? general petreaus said in recent interviews said that he would be willing not to strike at all unless he is emphasized conditions-base, whereas one has a presence that the president is much more keen on
7:00 pm
pulling the troops them? thank you. >> michael, you go first. >> i would start by saying that the president may have been trying to avoid the likelihood of another vietnam by saying i'm going to try to limit my exposure here, and that is why he said july 2011, but i think he knows better than that think that he could simultaneously triple combat troops and limit his exposure. .
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
military advice is not heated, he says i salute smartly in keep going. i am sure he will do whatever he is asked to do. the main problem is the president himself need to be a little more clear about what it july 2008 means. >> on the question of what the president had in mind, i'm waiting for the next book which i think is due shortly. i have the impression there was a little bit of a civilian military element to this.
7:03 pm
a factor was to signal to the u.s. military that there was a firm belief on the civilian side that they did not have an open ended timeline. secretary gate saluted the decision and defended it in public for another reason, that was a concrete, to signal the hazara 3 the karzai region -- to signal the karzai government. secretary gates accepted the president's decision. he presumably recognize that it would have this effect of causing actors to head and the uncertain. >> let's take one less question
7:04 pm
here. >> a couple of suggestions how about having an afghan on the table? maybe you should look hard at an afghan lady. in a lady might do it. -- any lady might do it. it says every 3% of the army and our students. it is an interesting article. >> what is the question? >> you have to segregate [unintelligible] there are certain people's hair out for revenge.
7:05 pm
-- who are out for revenge. they will be here. they want revenge. what is your reaction? i want to very quickly say in terms of our approach, of brookings is the only place and has published a book by an afghan woman and an american scholar. we are delighted to have the panel that we have today that i think represent the diversity. hourly the substantive matter to my colleagues. >> a doubly it as you put it for the fifth had a great deal of difficulty fred
7:06 pm
afghanistan does not have separatist movement. this is not a country where every group is trying to leave the country. the overall dynamic is to take the political integrity and maintain the position in the region. with that comes a balance in terms of distribution of power. we have to leave it to afghans as to whether they think they are underrepresented or underrepresented. i do not believe that it is not possible. it will be where they will be.
7:07 pm
they are organizing it. it has done fairly well. we have made great strides in establishing it. the question is not whether an army is possible. the question has been whether the scale is after we achieve that. it is a very different challenge that we face from the -- that we face. >> we need to conclude. i want to thank all the panelists very much for their contribution today and ask you to join me in expressing our appreciation. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
7:09 pm
>> florida is among four state voting today. we will hear concession speeches from the republican and democratic candidates for the senate seat there. our coverage starts tonight 7:30 p.m. eastern rwan john mccain is battling the house member for the republican nomination. c-span is your home for all campaign 2010 covered. recover ridge -- coverage. >> he said in a take a few years before u.s. troops to be able to hand over control to local afghan forces in some areas of that country.
7:10 pm
president obama said the u.s. to begin with -- will begin withdrawing this year. there is also discussion about the do not ask to die till controversy. if this is about 50 minutes allotted a -- this is about 50 minutes. >> it is my pleasure and privilege to welcome back to the pentagon briefing room the 34th confidants of the united states. general conway has served since november 13, 2006. he is one of only two to serve his entire tenure during wartime.
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
roumania success in iraq and has increased our president. our presence in afghanistan. there were 15 killed in action. they are dedicated to the task. as a nation, we believe and punching of of the weight. they are consumed with responding to the aftermath of the flood disaster we have had 2200 responding to the crisis. they have delivered more than 650 pounds of cargo. they should be off the coast of pakistan by mid to late september. the involvement of his army will report time ahead of their
7:13 pm
performing in married a task associated with these station. the number of marines was down from previous date and give our primary purpose for the trip was to visit marines and those that support us. it is not uncommon to find units away from their operating basis for 30 days at a time. using firepower, i believe that they hold the initiative even in the height of the television fighting season. they are making the enemy reacts to them. morale is high. marines can sense conditions are
7:14 pm
turning the other direction they reenlisted several hundred marines for them -- marines. they grew value of support of their american. he said in a lead our country go wobbly on us now. the capacity of the afghan army is at a critical stage. we are headed schedule with the infantry company. the quality varies widely. he faces the toughest part. that is to train the aviators in enablers. the truce will require a higher level of education and skills training for the appeared to have been just right for the task at hand there squarely on
7:15 pm
the side of their security forces for the ever so slowly, that is beginning to happen. though i certainly believe some units will turn over responsibility to afghan security forces into a dozen loven, i do not think there will be marines. they are the birthplace of the taliban. i since our country is growing tired of the war.
7:16 pm
art also " the analysis of one of my commanders. he said we can either lose fast or when slow. i think the first question is year. >> the marine corps is good to be facing some big changes on big front. one would be the discussion of the royal marines play. it also changes to personnel policy. >> although we have resolved this.
7:17 pm
we need to take a look at what our post-afghan figures will be as a solid planning figure for purposes of reset of our deployments to a unit in the pacific. we have a fairly sick of them -- they are listening again build up taking place. i will not start any bacof that until this is complete. then i think that would be the first thing. we will obey the law. we are anxious to see what the survey indicates when it is made public. i caution our marines. if the law charines. if the law changes, we pride our core in meeting these services in many things. there will be 100 issues out there that we will need to solve it the law changes. we cannot be seen as setting our
7:18 pm
feet or delaying it. we need to get on with it. >> i wanted to pick up on do not ask do not tell. the citadel pick it up next month. you have been followed by other marine generals. you oppose a change in the policy. if you look at the polls done by military times, the marines seemed to oppose any change in policy by a fairly sick of get margin. what is it above the marines that they oppose? you have been in the core for over four years. you talk to marines. what is it that they oppose about this?
7:19 pm
>> that is a tough question to answer. i am not familiar with the other services as i am my own accord. we recruit a certain type of young american that is willing to go fight and die for their country the. i look at how we close to live. i do not endorse it as the ideal way ahead of the i think it has
7:20 pm
impact on the marine. we will follow the law. >> living in tight quarters, and that the issue you mostly here? >> unlike the other services, we have consciously are built by two. if the law changes, we start out a problem in how to address that. we will deal with it. i do not believe there is money out there to build another requirement for beqs allow marines to have their own room by his or theirself. how we do with that will be an issue we will have to face. the majority will not like to
7:21 pm
room with an individual who is overly homosexual. some do not object. perhaps a voluntary basis by the the way to start without violating anybody's sense of perception our concern on the part. i do not know. we are not there yet. it is a hypothetical we will have to consider. >> he said the country's growing tired of the war. you are the first member to openly say that the country is growing tired of this war. how view maintain morale. whether the concerns for your true if the country is really tired of this? we say you will be there for a few years with a country that this tired. how many years? >> what i am saying to you is
7:22 pm
what i am reading from you folks, really. those are real public opinion polls. 70% of americans oppose it. i think that is an important factor in this discussion. i think that thwe have to do a better job about talking of the last chapter of this book. i do not think we have done a strong enough job in convincing the american people there are good and just reasons for why we have to destroy the outcry that in afghanistan. there is no future of opportunity for safe haven. what i just finished telling archer say you need to
7:23 pm
understand the public opinion in the united states will be whatever if it is. our country has matured to a degree that our fellow countrymen can be against the war is still support the troops. i honestly think it 95% of americans support the soldiers and not support them -- associate them with the administration. >> when you said that the marines or the military will be there a few years, what is your instinct on that? >> i cannot say we will be there for a few years. and what i said is that i think it will be a few years before conditions on the ground are such that we would expect to be able to turn over to afghan forces. i think there is a mind-set than in still a company that. it may be a while. >> what are you talking about?
7:24 pm
i cannot say that for sure. things twist and turn. we had intelligence officers in 2006 saying that all is lost. by the end it 2006, we had the awakening. conditions change completely in iraq. i do not see the culture in afghanistan change into something like that. reconciliation could be a game changer. >> on the issue of canal and up, the u.s. position has been to [unintelligible] japan has wanted to give them that. do you have an opinion? >> the runway was agreed upon. in terms of absolute safety, we still believe that is it is the
7:25 pm
best way to do things. it is a scenario to be resolved. it is safe for our pilots and air crews. >> how is the command going? kines say that a year from mel will be no withdrawals from marines in helmand? >> -- can you say that a year from now in helmand no withdrawals from marines in helmand? >> we are dealing with a very intelligent animals here who realizes that marcija has the capture of an international
7:26 pm
audience. they are not giving of easily. there is not as much fighting as we thought would be the case. if they sensed our ability to disrupt the command control. there is a lot in shaping that had gone into it. they are snapping at mainly, they are intimidating the people. let me make it clear purda. i cannot say they will be in the marines are not for the -- are
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
7:29 pm
do is aid in these other things. we shape the environment that allows these other kind of operation to take place. initially, we have had to do that by ourselves. increasingly, we call for turning that over to nation's security forces. that is why it is so important. the host nations to the plan where they can do those things. that is what we hope to accomplish. when we think we have sufficiently beaten down the insurgency in the area, yet
7:30 pm
built up the afghan capability. then i think we have done the essence of what we rescind their to do. one of the things he mentioned was that the afghan security forces, one in 10 show sign of the drug abuse, one out of five are belligerent. is there any indication to you that these afghan security forces are going to improve such that if we get the number they want it to be at the quality we need to turn them over it is going to become even more important they are every bit as good as the iraqis or even more so.
7:31 pm
they are quite effective. our attrition rate is down about 12%. those that we train and most the weekend are pretty good . they need to understand that they will be supported by u.s. marines and our place if things get too desperate. we think there is a concert there that is working. it is never going to be the british royal marines that we are training. the only need to be better than the insurgency. we think we can achieve that in a reasonable amount of time. >> the v-22 -- well as a performing in afghanistan in terms of readiness rates? whether some of the tax and mrs.
7:32 pm
that it was performing? >> -- what are some of the types of missions it was performing? >> we tested immediately into combat. we felt we have learned all we needed to know about a harsh environment in iraq. the varmint in afghanistan is a little different. we have other issues with regards to availability. our mechanics of getting better. it is involved behind the enemy. it is involved and the transfer of equipment.
7:33 pm
it has been shot at a few times. it is doing things in ways that still have us in terms of how best to employ such a state of the art capability. >> we offered to have the aircraft self deployed from the eastern coast. has to do with the pakistani air field and the team wanted as in a long term facility. >> what is the biggest acquisition problem you have had?
7:34 pm
>> the program is under scrutiny. everybody's anxious to see how it performs. we think it will perform much better. we are looking at affordability. we are excited about the capability. there is certainly a need for that kind of capability as we get back. >> when you leave, they are going to come. >> i can only say, i hope not. i hope not. it is incredibly important to us. >> looking into the future, the secretary talked about the
7:35 pm
review. [inaudible] he has questioned how much the amphibious capabilities you need. that becomes a navy ship building problem. are you concerned? >> no, i am really not. any person that takes a look except our dominant theory of forward deployment, in gauging away from united states. it is able to do whatever has to be done out there for them predict out there. there is a lot of instability out there. although we have been fortunate the last couple of times our nation has -- there are not lead
7:36 pm
places like that. i think that it is an asymmetric advantage. it is pretty much laid out by a previous behest qdr that says we will have 2 brigades. to be augmented by all the other services. it is not just in marine's lies in a thing. the other would be deeply engaged. i think they deeply believe it is the capacity the nation needs a burda -- needs. but i want to ask about to challenges the marines face. one is above the emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties. the debate challenge is that for marines getting the job done? the other is a perception issue. the president's day for the
7:37 pm
beginning of the withdrawal and a ability to effect that has some local afghans. does that make your job more difficult? >> the answer is always the same. it does not bother us much. we understand the nature of the afghan culture and society. we accept that if you want to conserve enemies coming need to avoid civilian casualties. conceptually, we are there for them. and execution, we are good. that is who we are. our communication is good. we have tactical patients to make this work. at every level, we are ok. in terms of the july 11 issue, i
7:38 pm
think if you follow closely, it is giving our enemies sustenance. he made the same the way of intercepted communications that say we have to hold up for so long. what is the in me going to say? what is he going to say where you have your leadership outside the country trying to direct operations? it is to gain is for them to be there.
7:39 pm
>> is a reconciliation process to get going? >> we visited with of the runs in afghanistan. it was really interesting to talk with them about the friends from our enemies getting tired. they are getting hammered. is this all worth it? they are asking themselves that now. it is certainly not all going
7:40 pm
7:41 pm
partners are concerned we could have such a serious breach. at the same time, i have not ask anyone to examine all the documents. i do not think it is being held tactically. i do not think the impact is severe for the there is the theater reserve for the commander. he has chosen an elected to commend their and the feature for a time for the investor some of the capability to respond elsewhere. there is no impact. we are relying in the common
7:42 pm
process -- in the helmand province. in terms of iraq, we are out of iraq for all intents and purposes and have been for a better part of a year. we have a different culture and environment for them we focused on the delta. the focus on the third reserve and the -- that is working for us. the marines back in the 20's learned many of these lessons in terms of the transition process we talked the the emanuel has
7:43 pm
really been our meeting for the way ahead. >> troops are watching the ups and downs. [inaudible] >> i emphasize to them the number one concern on the part of american troops is the country behind us. i will tell you. i am so proud of our american public. regardless of how they see what happened in iraq war of afghanistan, they support the troops. that is a message they get from me and they see when they come home. in that regard, i am impressively -- incredibly proud of our country. >> he mentioned the leadership is outside the country.
7:44 pm
why are we still there? why do not we focus for the leadership is? >> first of all, it is not a black and white situation. to begin elements are out of the country, and not susceptible to the day to day contacext. it is noted by the but soldiers we think there is a senior valley probably can exploit. >> some marines equated with the efc platform . do you agree to they run the risk of cleaning to the. clinging to the platform?
7:45 pm
>> it is not the platform. it is the capability. it is the only thing out there that gives it the capability for their when the secretary made the determination to trim away the ef22. there were another of aircraft that could perform that function, maybe not as well, they could still do it. this is the only capability that exists out there to get this from over the horizon. we are going to have to come from over the horizon. you are over the horizon, you are at least 12 or 40 miles out . i would be hesitant to put some of those vehicles at sea. it is not necessarily made by general dynamics. it is the capability that we need to be cognizant of. we would still be looking to
7:46 pm
come up with that capability. it is essential to the way we do business. >> mention small wars. what do you think? what is the state of the readiness? how should the shape to meet that. do you agree they have to worry about that? >> citigroup we put together a said almost the same thing. they said the most likely conflict is what they call hybrid warfare, a regional conflict. we have to have a marine corps that this bill toward that. we have an expression that we do windows of whatever the nation asks us to do. at the same time, said terry
7:47 pm
gates has said that i support that. that is my belief. there is also a routine element of surprise where we fight the battle will not do we were not prepared to engage in. our guide and has them what it always has then. we need to be to fisted fighter. we need to be able to do what we are doing in afghanistan. need to be able to do what we did in 2003 will me cross the iraqi border. we are trying to build boats. it takes away from some of the core competencies. >> eiffel marines of the in helmand.
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
our understanding. we have a little bit of a different approach from the marines. we believe that the nea to challenge the enemy. -- challenge the enemy where we think hata strength. we are less prone to move into a 14 today for the operating phase. we hope you will stay with force to bill behind us with -- forced to go behind is a transition for their epic a minor difference in operating philosophy. there are some minor differences in how we approach that.
7:50 pm
>> you have to have a place where you can go back to at least rest and resupplied this type of things. most of the places will have a secure a helicopter pad. we do not want our helicopters to fly in the plays that are not secured th. we do believe in the bases. you have to have a security force. you have to protect it. that each of manpower. we want to have a minimum of those contingent with the thought you can get out and roam the countryside, and trying to suppress the insurgent of the army is beginning in of all.
7:51 pm
>> we have been looking at hours for a long time. we are assessing the effects on the -- >> we are a rifle marine corps. we believe in long-range shooting skills. they are not as as resident of a are in the service but if that is not to say we do not use it. we are dealing with an automatic rifle as opposed to a machine gun. they are going to come back and give as an appraisal. we have looked at a 726 system.
7:52 pm
we've looked at another that interchangeable perils and receivers. before we would go to something like that in a completely new rifle, which to be fairly expensive for us, we want to make sure we are getting all we can as the fire out of the five by six. >> when will the rivals the going forward? but pretty soon. probably toward the end of the year. >> we have time for one or two more. >> after the structure review is done, do you have any doubt the marine corps will be less capable? >> that is certain not the intent of venice today in tent. been time after in a canister,
7:53 pm
202,000 marines is probably too many. people are expensive. madonna the would it keep them constructively occupied. in the end, we will probably take the options by this review group. we will make some assumptions as to the climate. we will try to come away with an option that allows us to look toward that figure in terms of the requirement. we need something out there. in no way would we expect to build a less capable 1. >> she wanted to be optimized that still have to sacrifice during capabilities? >> no.
7:54 pm
i do not think we will eliminate any of our capabilities. that is the only way we will be less capable predict -- less capable. the took some losses early on for some very awkward snipers in marja and some other places. the best counter-sniper system is another sniper. are snipers are very good. we had taken down that debt significantly. secondly, we are impacting supply lines.
7:55 pm
but our read is that the enemy is having a tougher time getting the elements into place the dough it will be able to attack is through the system. security has not turned sufficient you got it. we have the momentum. we have the initiative. that is different from declaring the security conditions have changed magically. >> you said something that i like to ask you what he meant -- you meant. you talked about the moral perception that marines have with people serving in the marine corps. what do you mean by more
7:56 pm
perception? >> we have some people that are very religious. in some instances, we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion. it should go against their religious beliefs. that is my belief about some percentage of marines and our core. >> if that is the case and the law changes, as a senior commander, volunteer force that should those people leave? should accommodations be made? what do you do about that? >> i've the commander, you try to satisfy the requirements of all your marines. if the law changes, we will be as concerned about their rights and privileges as you will marines who feel differently about that whole paradigm.
7:57 pm
local commanders will be required to assist us in making sure that every marine is provided for in this focus on it. >> one more? you said kandahar and helmand are the birthplace of the taliban. it is also the center drug production. what is your sense of of the production process of opium in and from helmand? >> it is a dramatically reduced. it to be further reduced in the future. we have reports said the drug trafficking walk to the taliban.
7:58 pm
this summer between $70 million a year of the way of 24 under million dollars a year in terms of resources. it allows them to buy the tools of war and use them against us. we knew we had to use them to attend to beat that back. it was our perception that the farmers in and around marcia gambled and lost. they put a copy in the ground when the governor told them not to do that. -- marja gambled and lost. they put poppy in the ground when the governor told them not to do. you know about people. in many instances, we gave them just a subsistence to burn their own fields. the production this year was very much a destructive. in the meantime, we know you'll
7:59 pm
treat inmates if the take away the ability for a man to feed his family. it is through instruction on how to create a different crop after trying to make sure that the infrastructure is there at harvest time. you are not good to have five guys come in there and pick it up for you. through the afghan government, we will give them another way to be a productive and successful farmer. the russian wheat will be less available on the market. there is the pakistani wheat fields. they will be problematic. we think that the price of wheat will fare pretty well. in that regard, we could be fortunate that we are of to the afghan farmers. afghan farmers.
131 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPANUploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=458253354)