not held accountable for our decisions. in matters of defense and intelligence, it is critical that there be scrupulous accountability, the kind that can be located only in the political branch. if critical measures are impeded by lawyers in terms of constitutional questions and a judge rules on them, there are constitutional requirements. accountability fails. .

>> this is a cartoon. i know little of military justice. not many law school students can

talk about it. i would prefer to stand trial in the military tribunal in any court state or federal. service in the military is not honored as service -- the best graduates of our law schools are impeded from contributing to the military and the insights of distinguished lawyers and judges. in other times, the military has been a place where people out in different advantages in life came together and to know each other and trust each other.

it must have made a difference when citizens of privilege, education, and prospects interacted every day for years. for the privilege went on to read -- to wield influence. i discussed these subjects with my colleague, the judge danny parker, who was a trial judge. to his observation, it had an impact on sentencing. judges have known shared experience and even camaraderie. people who appeared before them for sentencing. judges could appreciate the strength and the instincts of those who had been without a head start or a good hand in life. the judges had known people for their honesty and courage and had encountered them in ranks other than the criminal classes.

the harsh sentencing regimes that prevails zero sum of the distinction between military and the rest of us. i said that a war had intensified to fell competition between the legal the lead and the military. i think that that is why the legal elite is reluctant to acknowledge the it advantages that are given to the military and intelligence and military calculation and response. they gain resources, influence, deciding policy and strategy. they have the indispensable insights and critical experience. they become heroes, however unwillingly. because this elevates influence in government, policy, and constitutional imperatives, this thereby discounts and subordinates our own.

this displaces the legal elite from its sole place of prestige in american life. both lawyers and soldiers have indispensable roles and defense of our constitutional government. the constitution means a certain amount of flexibility and reciprocal accommodation. some competition is inevitable, the antipathy of the lawyer a leak makes the competition destructive. constitutional values, and due process, civil liberties and civilian control are pressed into service as instruments for preserving our dominance. it is not surprising that this manifest obviously in the ongoing debate over how to classify the threat from terrorism. this is a matter of national defense or a matter of law enforcement.

the arguments lime cosines. to my observation, this promotes this alien role of the lawyer test. many lawyers deny that we are at war. peace is a time when soldiers are a contingent asset and lawyers are sent so the lawyer e. lead has an interest in the ninth ward. -- the lawyer e. leelite. competition and antipathy also met assessed themselves as perot bono activity and defense lawyers ideas on what of the public good is. the fiasco following the 2000 election, i watched on television and if there were

many lawyers who argued that absentee ballots mailed in by those should be discarded later on. maybe the balance relates to property disqualified him. ahoy i would not have except an advocacy role. mahethe lawyers would have scord was discussed the work of any other groups in this country. i suspect that every last one of them would happily served pro bono, the right for felons to vote in jail. there was something alien of them serving in the military and it worked their idea of the public good. by the same token, many inmates of the facility at one time obey find themselves over represented.

the assistant attorney general tells us that 34 of the 50 largest law firms in the country have advocated on behalf of guantanamo detainees. and some family courts, soldiers and sailors are found to be unfit parents because they are being deployed abroad. the defense of guantanamo detainees has been cast as a courageous act of vindicating the finest addition of our profession, to protect the accused and despised. i hesitate to judge a lawyer that many have had to take. the civil-rights movement created her role models for the movement. it is hardly an act of courage for lawyers to do the most fashionable thing they can do, to do so to the applause of the

associations, the law schools, and the media, and to enjoy the advocating on the big controversial issues, not to mention the thrill of rep clients who would kill the lawyers if they could. that is if military officials were not standing by. [applause] my experience is that people do not fall all over each other to commit acts of courage. permit me to doubt the outpouring of resources. one of those selfless acts was from a wall street law firm. something else drives this phenomenon. the main struggle and the competition between the military and the legal community has to do with civil liberties. lawyers have an interest in exaggerated threats to civil

liberties said to be posed by measures designed to protect the nation. consider the civil liberties litigation that arose when the nation's libraries were allowed to show what was checked out by people at the various libraries. it was just an inquiry but allowed them to identify ted kosinski as the unabomber. his manifesto had been cribbed from books he had taken out. that at the side -- episode excited no anxiety. why should this? i remember that every had a card in the back cover at recorded their every person who are of that book. the idea that this controversy involves a threat to liberty was overwrought. but, this is of a peace emotionally with other litigation challenging the

country under attack, litigation resolving habeas corpus, guantanamo, etc. this allows lawyers to cast themselves in a heroic and domint role as the real defenders of the constitution in league of course with the journalist to chronicle their achievements on behalf of the constitutional order. why do lawyers worry? what we lose if the military joins us in preserving the constitutional government? illegals damage and and the military are not exactly engaged in the same project. for lawyers, the constitution is means to other ends. law professors and meno the intricate workings and the mainstreams of the constitution

and many of them use their skills is to meddling, the way a good safecracker regards a safe. anything that diminishes the primacy of lawyers vis-à-vis the constitution is something that undermines a claim of entitlement abided the elite bar and the professoriate and the judges to control the constitution. whatever the legal merits might be, the litigation i'm talking about. the theater of litigation allows a lawyer cast to set itself up as the true defender of the nation and its people. the more numerous the civil liberties issues, the easier it becomes for litigators, law school clinics, bar committees, and associates to present themselves as the authentic defenders of the constitution in actual opposition to the military and in opposition to

law-enforcement and intelligence professions that value military service and internalize military values. competition has sharpened. lawyers cannot just doing the other side. we have different skills sets, tactical imagination, culture, values, attitudes towards physical risk, we cannot shine or prevail in the other sphere. what is at stake is -- lawyers and the military are in competition for honor. the word has lost currency but the concept has lost none of its potency. the greatest danger for our country is structure. in order to maintain civilian control, we need civilians to understand the military. what they do and who they are.

they have a rivalry. how weapons work, which are needed. what they should cost, how to allocate resources. strategy, tactics, intelligence, logistics'. who to put in charge and listen to. when to check the military. when to mobilize. all of these are things that i don't now. it is not due to watch some powers in the hands of civilian leaders who, like me, are ignorant of military life and culture. it is worse to put in charge civilian leaders who are suspicious opponents of the military, just as such powers should never be in the hands of jingoists or military groupies. it is not necessary or possible that all of our leaders should serve but i think that the skills needed for effective civilian control are required

only by the management of responsibilities, the weighing in of insurmountable values and consequential action taken decisively in ambiguous conditions. this is not by a degree in public policy or by general publication, by a fellowship abroad, or an international tribunal. it cannot be easy to heal the breach between lawyers and the military. whenever cultures merged on common ground, there is adjustment going on and we calibration. there is no way to do this without discomfort. first, it must be embraced as a worthy project. the law schools need to be unsealed. pro bono activity should be credited as much by service to

the military as by suing it. [applause] the judge advocate general course should be recognized as integral for the common project of justice. those in the military service should be recognized by us as appears in the defense of our constitutional republic. the military calling should be understood to be a profession among professions, ancient, honorable, ethical, expert, and indispensable. thank you for listening. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, president obama and nato officials open a two-day meeting in lisbon. then a review of the war in afghanistan. then senator elect michael lee and several -- and senator mike pence at the federalist society. tune in to american history television and a daylong symposm on the war. prominent historians giving a new perspective on the international perspective on the war. >> listen to landmark supreme court cases saturday on c-span radio. >> in texas, women are not able to receive abortions from license doctors because doctors

still feel that they will be prosecuted under the statute. >> part 2 of roe vs. wade. this is considered one of the court's most controversial decisions. listen to the case on c-span radio. >> president obama is among dozens of heads of state attending a two-nato summit in portugal. the president said that nato agreed to his plans for a new expanded missile defense system for europe that would cover all nato member countries and the united states. he said that saturday's session will focus on a strategy for afghanistan. a top official says that it will begin reducing their troops in afghanistan beginning in july and they will end their role there in 2013 or earlier.

>> how are you. >> i know you have been working on this. >> discussions at the two-day nato summit in lisbon, portugal, focused on partnership building with russia, on a missile

defense program for europe. next remarks from general rasmussen at the nato opening ceremonies. it is a little over 10 minutes. >> the meeting is opened. excellences, ladies and gentlemen. today and tomorrow we will take decisions which will from the future of our alliance.

these decisions will reaffirm the shared commitment by all our countries to the freedom and security of our citizens. this commitment is the bedrock of our alliance and it is upheld every day by the more than 100,000 men and women who served in nato operations from afghanistan to close above, and from the horn of africa to the mediterranean sea. i think it is appropriate that we began our summit with a tribute to them. the bravery of the soldiers, sailors, air force personnel,

and civilians gave strength and meaning to our alliance. every day, without question, that themselves in harm's way so that others can live safely. we owe a debt of gratitude to them. we are privileged to be joined this afternoon by representatives of the armed services of the 28 allied nations.

>> i welcome you all to this council meeting, and i would like to express to and through you to all the other servicemen and women in nato-led operations our profound gratitude. we honor in particular those who have given their lives on behalf of our alliance. their sacrifice marks a profound loss to their families and their loved ones and to their countries. we extend our deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones

of our fallen military and civilians, and we mourn the loss together with some. -- with them. we also honor those who have been injured in the course of our common effort. may i now ask you to join me in a minute's silence to pay homage to all those who have fallen or have been injured in the service of our alliance. ♪

♪ >> thank you. [applause]

>> excellences, ladies and gentlemen, the nato allies represent a unique and essential community of nations, committed to shared values, individual liberty, democracy, and human rights, bou togher by solidarity, united in the determination to stand together and defend one another against threats to our security. the basic tenets have made nato the most successful alliance in history, and this summit will conserve that success. here in lisbon, we shall define the course of the alliances to take in the coming 10 years, a

decade in which nato will become more effective, more engaged in the world, and more efficient than ever before. we will develop modern capabilities to defend against modern threat. we will reach out to partners around lopez. we will make a fresh start in our relations with russia, with the aim of building a strategic partnership, and we will streamline the alliance to make it more efficient by cutting the fat so that our taxpayers get maximum security for the money they invest in defense.

for these reasons, this will be one of the most important summits in nato history. summits in nato history. prime minister, let me thank you for hosting us here in lisbon. now the floor is yours. >> mr. secretary general, heads of state and governments, portugal is brown to be one of the founding members of nato. we participate actively in alliance activities and operations since its founding 61 years ago. we have for four decades a nato command close to lisbon, and it is along this line of permanent commitment with nato that we are organizing this summit, the

first summit and the heads of state level and government held in our country. i have always considered nato as an essential institution for democratic peace. this is its heritage. 60 years of peace, freedom, and stability, a heritage built on strategic coherence, sound commitment, military capacity, but above all, built on the common values we share common values of peace, freedom, and security. the lisbon summit will be a decisive landmark in at nato's evolution. we will reiterate its founding

principle, and i'm quite sure of that fact of the alliance united 3 values of democracy and freedom. we will update collective decision, taking into account the new risk we face. we will strengthen our capacity to intervene intervention and crisis management which may jeopardize our own security, and we will underline nato's role in cooperative safety by acting in a polar world which is ours and in partnership with other organizations and nations to organizations and nations to promote stability and global security. the strategic concept we will approve in lisbon defines in a clear and decisive form the principles. it is our vision for the next decade, a vision and enhancing multilateralism and partnerships.

a vision protecting our citizens against threats and their security, such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, cyber attacks, and against organized-crime related with drug trafficking and human trafficking. the strategic conference will not direct the form of metal structures. every turn -- form which -- takes advantage of available resources. heads of states and governments, allow me to say some words about the meetings held on afghanistan and with the russian federation. i'm quite certain that tomorrow we will give a clear sign of support to the transition

afghanistan, based on a strategic partnership guaranteeing the security and stability in the country in the long run. portugal will continue engaged in this objective and will strengthen its contribution for the training mission of the afghan forces, allowing the country to fully assume sovereignty. finally, it is with particular satisfaction that we welcome in lisbon the summit for the nato- russia council. we are certain that tomorrow's meeting will mark a new phase in the strategic relationship between nato and russia. as you know, portugal has given its contribution to strengthen the nato-russia partnership, because we consider that it is vital for the security and stability of the zero atlantic zone -- euro-atlantic zone.

our agenda is very demanding, which is the only way to achieve historic results. i'm quite certain this will be a summit which will be a landmark in nato's history. i want to reiterate on behalf of my country the pleasure is to welcome all of you. thank you very much. thank you, secretary general. >> thank you very much indeed, prime minister. let me express our gratitude again to the portuguese authorities for receiving us so warmly here in lisbon. my now ask the media to leave room so that we can begin our meeting. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> next, a review of the war in afghanistan. then, center elect michael lee and congressman mike pins at the federalist society. after that, circuit appeals judge dennis jenkins talks about national security. >> tomorrow, congressman colbern talks about his election as the minority leader. >> go back to being the chair. he will go back to being the butt and nancy pelosi will go back to being the leader. i thought that the things i have learned could be put to great

use in our leadership discussions. if we were to bring another chair to the table, i do believe that we are in a different political environment and we have a caucus that is a little bit different from the republican conference. we have 42 african americans, we have 21 hispanics that make up the hispanic conference, we have blue dogs, all of this diversity i thought i would learn all about. i really could bring discussions to that table and can take them away from the table in to our constituency in a way that would limit me if i was chair of the caucus. >> "newsmakers," with south carolina representative james cliburn -- clyburn.

>> the studentcam competition is in full swing. upload your video before january 20th for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. the competition is open to middle and high school students. for all the rules, go online. >> now, the state of thewe will hear from formerthey evaluate progress being made in afghanistan and talk about this week's nato military conference in lisbon. this event was held at the army navy club in washington d.c.. because of technical issues, we join this a couple of minutes

in. >> i was in afghanistan in september. i did another assessment for general petraeus. i had done many for him in iraq in 2007 and 2008. after he parachuted into afghanistan somewhat unexpectedly, he asked me to come over and take a look and give him some feedback, which i did for two and a half weeks, and winter just about all the contested areas,o our troops, local government officials, a lot of time with the afghan national army and police and a fair amount of time with the people themselves to understand what is really happening. a judgment is that i am very encouraged. we are beginning to turn the momentum around to our favor in afghanistan.

we still have a tough fight on our hands, make no mistake about that. i am convinced that if the momentum continues, and my judgment tells me it will, by next spring, we will have a definable progress that will be set evident to anyone. most of my feedback is some what anecdotal, but i trust it because i had similar feedback early on in the surge in iraq. i was there in february when the troops when and and came back a few months later. i began to see very similar preliminary signs that the surge was working. what are the signs? first of all, the erosn of the will of the enemy and the breakdown of some of their morale. had we get that information?

first of all we listen to their radio traffic every day and listen to their cell phone traffic. we get a volume of information on what is their attitude, behavior, what they think about what is happening. their morale is being eroded by the prosecution of now comprehensive combat operations against it. the second thing, this was a focus area for me. every task force commander that's up to have evidence of taliban that were willing to reintegrate. that means to cross over. every single one of them. some had just a handful and others had as much as 200300. 200-300. that is a very significant factor. general petraeus has put in place a program with president karzai as approval that will

employ and pay people to compaq and reintegrate. the name of that program is afghan local police. in iraq, the program grew to 110,000 and was decisive in the war. in afghanistan, we do not know what that number will grow to, but it will be in the thousands, to be sure. it will have a profound impact on the speed at which we cannot achieve stability and security. the additional 30,000, added to what we already had there, largely from the u.s., coupled with the afghan national force, it is decisive because it can operate comprehensively against the operational framework of the enemy at the same time in all the contested areas.

we have never been able to do that. we always had to be selective. that is the reality of it. this is a decisive force, and is now beginning to have some impact on this enemy. the second thing is, the people are fed up with or, much as they were in iraq. this is nine years now, and they are fed up with it and very susceptible to supporting our efforts, once we are able to put people on the ground and stayed there and continue to support them and be willing to sacrifice ourselves to do that. the third thing is betrays himself. he has touched every aspect of the command, geopolitical, tactical operation.

he has run an attitude that we can win this thing. it is doable. it is hard, but it is not hopeless that we can win. those are the terms that he uses, and he has the entire command on the same page. no reflection of stand crystal, a great general officer who we have tremendous respect for, but let's be frank, petraeus is a one-of-a-kind and is having some profound impact on this war. 2014 net is now being discussed in lisbon and was announced by government officials of the united states as a reasonable target date for us to move toward, and beginning transition probably next year and move towards that as some sort of objective state, i think that is reasonable.

i came to that conclusion myself and tell that to general petraeus when i was there in september. but sanctuary is in pakistan. if we do not like the 2014 transition complete in terms of our objective, their support for the insurgency that is raging inside afghanistan. though some insurers are aided and abetted by the government of pakistan and by the military in pakistan. that is the harsh reality of it. the pakistan does not pull the plug on most sanctuaries' or we do not take them down ourselves, it is hard to imagine us meeting a satisfactory 2014 date. i think once we start making some progress here, definable progress, i think pakistan recognize the tables are turning on them in the sense that the taliban is not going to stay in control or regain

control of afghanistan. the united states is not precipitously leaving them and also taliban in charge. afghanistan has always been a strategic bunker for them, and have been hedging their strategic objectives here simply because of the harsh reality that they have never been convinced of the u.s. commitment. i think that commitment is there. it is obvious it is gone to stay and it will turn the tables in afghanistan, and i believe our diplomats will have some leverage to turn the tables with pakistan as well. i want to stop right there in introduce my colleague to my left here. this is ambassador ronald newman. it was formerly a deputy assistant secretary. he served three times as ambassador to algeria and finally to the islamic republic of afghanistan from july

20052007. before that he was a career member of the foreign service serving in baghdad from 2004 with a coalition provincial authority and then as the embassy's principal interlocutory where he was coordinating political action. that was another 16-month tour that he did there. an amazing man of experience in this part of the world. he is the author of "the other war, winning and losing in afghanistan." he received distinguish towards as well as individual awards in 1993 and 1990. he also served as an army infantry officer in vietnam and holds a bronze star, which she is wearing on his tie clasp.

i was proud to see him with that. in baghdad he was awarded the army outstanding civil service medal. -- civilian service medal. he currently is the president of the american academy of diplomacy. >> thank you very much. aware that because it reminds me on a bad day in bureaucracy that things can be worse. -- i wear that because it reminds me. when i look at the title of today's call, progress or regress, i was reminded of chairman mao's favors -- famous comment about the revolution.

he said it is too early to tell. as we evaluate what is going on in afghanistan, it is important to have a little check on our desire for instant results in our 24-hour media culture, were we want instant answers all the time. i left afghanistan in 2007 and always back last may. i also retain contacts with a lot of afghans and a lot of americans on the ground, so i'm not up-to-date as general keane but may bring it some different perspective, particularly of afghan views of where we are. i would say that i agree that there is progress. i think it is extremely important that we be careful not to exaggerate the progress, because as all of us know, war is an interactive enterprise.

there are -- too much depicting of war as a straight continuation of a plan or progress. i have basically three. someone to make, and i will try to follow the excellent example of general keane in keeping too much time. one is yes, there is progress, but understand how much ambiguity exists about it. be very careful about haste, and understand the consequences of our own actions. i agree that there is no question we are making progress on the ground with our military. that is very clear. it is also important to remember that that progress will not actually mean much until

afghan security forces can take the place of the forces that are employed so they can go elsewhere. the marines are doing quite well in parts of helmand. the jury is out on some other places. that is good news. it is also irrelevant if you cannot get enough afghan forces to allow them to redeploy, or we end up with too many forces onto small piece of ground. i think personally the jury is still out on afghan security force development.

i believe that the afghan army has made great progress. there is a lot to work with there. we also have to be cognizant of the need not to overuse that force. we have not yet begun successfully to institute the red green amber cycle of redeployment of units for rest. we are managing to do it for companies. we are not yet able to actually rotate units. we know what happens to our units have to keep them in battle too long. we have had a real problem of maintaining the force. we have to putting up trainers. i think we will see some more commitments out of nato. we have to maintain the imbedded element, which is really the new peace that is tremendously important. just understand those things are not done yet. security from taliban means security -- it means freedom to travel. you have to look at that from an afghan perspective, not a military perspective. the ability to live and work securely. afghans will not feel secure until they are secured by afghan

forces, because they know the foreigners believe. so yes, progress, but a lot of ambiguity. second, we really have to guard against haste. we are under enormous political pressure from our own government, from circumstances, and from shakiness from nato to move quickly. pressure can be a good thing, but it can also be a dangerous thing. we are still employing some of the very warlords that we condemn in other cases. some of the reason we do that is because we are in a hurry. but that may be a good thing, but haste is potentially dangerous. it can lead us to overstretch forces. it could lead us to demand progress which can work our own reporting internally. we think we are pretty good at a boarding that, but we have had experiences of that before. people become vested in the programs that there are

responsible for administering. so haste is something we have to guard against. then we have to think very hard constantly about the consequences of our own actions. we are very good reflecting on the consequences of afghan actions like president karzai's recent press statement. but we have had a lot of trouble dealing with a consequence of some of our own actions. we do have the forces we need and where putting a lot of money into it. i would have given my right arm back in 2005 when are recommended a $600 million economic supplemental and after a long bureaucratic struggle about 43. that is part of the story of under resources and part of the past. but this deadline of july 2011 has done us enormous harm. it has led the afghans and pakistan is in others to believe we are out of there pretty quickly, too quickly.

i personally think it has led president karzai and others to believe that he has to construct and afghan forces of militia commanders that will fight if we fail allen into fast. i suspect he believes we are still going to fast. the one place where i might differ is that i don't think our will is yet certain. i think we are moving in a very correct decision as we change the narrative from 2011 to 2014. one should not believe we are going to get instant credibility for that change. the big inflection. is going to be in this december review ourselves. if we come out of their review with a spat of white house press leaks of political pressure for withdrawal faster than commanders think is

sensible, then the tech away of afghans in pakistanis and others is that we are looking for an excuse to leave too quickly. it is very important that we understand that how we play the next year or so on the tempo of transition, on the reality of the conditions on the ground,

where there really are turning over because of conditions or whether it is under pressure to find the conditions. that is going to have an enormous amount to do with our credibility. our credibility as a direct reciprocal impact on afghan actions. we want them to build a better government. in many cases -- we have to get back to one page and not to. i don't think he went to underestimate the difficulty of getting on to that single page, because we have radiated a lot of conflicting messages in the past. balon, yes, there is progress. we should judge it. we should not try to judge things for which we do not yet have enough time and faxed to judge. as we move forward, we have to constantly go dig very, very deep. i think the afghan local police program may work, but i think there will be a lot of temptation to have become politicized, to have it become a force of local commanders, it will be hugely important that we look really hard, not just at the security we are providing, but what we are creating politically. right now there is a considerable -- considerable divergence between one afghan see and what we are reporting in some areas.

that is not a bad thing, but we just have to keep digging and looking and being realistic with ourselves. so we are cautiously optimistic. diplomats are the ones who always see the glass as half empty and they worry about whether it is gone to great. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. our next distinguished colleague is a native of pakistan, director of the south asian center and also a political and strategic analyst and rides for leading newspapers. he speaks on current topics before civic groups at think tanks and on radio and television. his latest book is "crossed swords." he is also the author of "fatah, the most dangerous place." he worked as a newscaster and producer for pakistan television and covered the 1971 war with india on the western front.

he worked for the world health organization and "the new york times." he has headed three separate divisions at the international monetary fund. he was a director of the international atomic energy agency in vienna. u.s. the managing editor of finance and development and on the editorial advisory board of the world bank research observer. we are delighted to have you here. >> thank you, general. it is always wonderful to be here, although sometimes i

prefer to be in the audience so i can ask questions, particularly with a panel like this around me. i agree with a lot of things that are being said. i'm going to try and give a perspective on how this war is seen from inside pakistan. there is obviously a reality that the afghanistan war cannot be delinked from the war inside pakistan. there is an afghan-taliban century -- sanctuary inside fatah. there was a backlash among the local population which gave rise to the birth of the pakistan taliban. not only did it do that, it allowed them to link up with al qaeda. they have taken the war inside pakistan to the palestine 3 pakistan are -- taking it to the pakistan army.

they are very much part of a religious war inside pakistan between the radical elements and the more traditional majority of pakistan which believes in sufi islam. what to do about the afghan refugees whose camps inside pakistan form the official -- c.m.e. in this case can get rotation much more easily than across the border, whereas it is much harder for the coalition forces to be able to do that.

and yet the focus has been when we talk about the war and pakistan on what pakistan can do and what it has done to help with the fight. . . pakistan can do and what it has done to help with the fight. who is fighting the insurgency inside pakistan? it is primarily the army. that may be the wrong way of doing it, because history dictates, as we are now learning even afghanistan, the ones you have community-based police, you can isolate the military from local population and win their confidence and respect d beble to provide good government administration

and the local level, and build on that to the next level further up. what happened in afghanistan was that we began at top. didn't we are finding it very difficult now to divest. the same thing happened inside pakistan. because of many years of autocratic rule, provinces were taken away. it is only in the last two years that some rule has taken place. the 18th amendment to the powers of light from the president and gave it back to the prime minister and parliament. also to the national finance commission of war. the first time nowin the next month or two, the prime minister has promised to actually reduce the size of the cabinet so that

those secretaries that will all -- that belonged previously to islamabad will now move to the provinces. until and unless pakistan can stabilize its own policy, it will be difficult for us to get a decision now pakistan that will really be helpful on the border. here pakistan places a strange paradox, a conundrum. inside pakistan wen the taliban to go over, there was a huge public outcry against the form of government that the taliban represented, what they were doing to the local culture and the local population. the army, which had lost its respect among the population, had fallen from #one ranking in institutions that the people respected.

it fell to no. 3, behind journalists and lawyers. once the people of our kali taliban actually functioned, they push the army back and said we are with you. go and sort these people out. the army went back and did the job and managed to rise again to no. 1 ranking, if you follow the polls. the question is, if that is the case inside pakistan, this pakistan want a taliban government in kabul? i think the answer is no. at the same time, there is still a vestige of the previous thinking in the corridors inside pakistan. the view of pakistan is some kind of client state, and th

misguided notion that is rooted in the war against the soviets were because of that contiguous ity of the terrory, pakistan felt their best representatives junepashtun. so they broke and essentially the northern alliance and the west country. i think a serious step needs to be made within pakistan to rethink this view and to look at how stand as it truly is, a much more mature, well established country get has been in existence for over 200 years, whereas pakistan is barely years old. to undstand the reality and

tutsi afghanistann any way. -- to see afghanistan. the 2011 deaine i think was unfortunate in that it was highlighted and then people did not read the footnotes, the explanations that followed. the message that went out to pakistan was shades of 1989, the u.s. is going to have another precipitate withdrawal and we will be left with the chaotic situation are western border. we already have lived in india, rising as an economic and political power to the east. they need to have some kind circui some kind leverage in what ever would ensue once the allies quit afghanistan. you have to recall that pakistan was not in the coalition of the willing.

it was in the coalition of the colors. we had president bush are oat our center last week and he had a hard time trying to -- we had president musharraf, making some bad decisions in terms of deployment of the army. the good news is that the army chief general does pear to get this come to some extent. last year when he spoke at the national defense university, and i know a number of the people in the audience were there, he used the term strategic debts. this is a terminus haunted us since the 1980's. -- a term th has haunted us since the 1980's. it meant essentially that if india were to break through into afghanistan in occupied

territory, that pakistan would use iran and at -- india. the reality on the ground is that if india were to break through, it would occupy the biggest cities and the key infrastructure between north and south pakistan, essentially by the country into two reports, and the game would be over. it doesot matter if the state in afghanistan, it would not mean much. essentially, after the general left, the army forgot about this. it is a very wonderful tode which continues to -- wonderful title. it is aided and abetted by western media. i don't think there is a basis in terms of reality for this kind of thinking.

general came redefine strategic debt. he said a prosperous and stable afghanistan. if this were to occur, we would have fresh relationships between the two countries, which would be much more imrtant. a thing on a larger scale, it would be to the uned states should now make active efforts been cultivating its other strategic partner in the region, which is india, to give pakistan that breathing room that would allow ample to grow more forces to fight on the border. as it is, pakistan now has 34,000 troops, which is much more than they need to get the job done. so it is a question of timing now and whether the hedging strategy will be affected. we will see what comes out of

e data and if it takes us to 2014, i expect that pakistan is rethinking their strategy. thank you very much. >> next we have mr. m boot. he is one of america's leading military hisrians and foreign policy analysts. he serves as senior fellow at the council on foreign relations in new york. more than 100,000 copies of his book are in print. his last book has been hailed as a magisterial survey of technology and more, and really crafted history by the the wall street journal." he is an adviser to u.s. commanders in iraq and

afghanistan and was a senior foreign policy adviser to senator john mccain during his presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. in 2004 he was named by the world cares council of america as one of the 500 most influential people in the u.s. in the field of foreign policy. before joining the council in 2002, he's been eight years as a writer and editor "the wall street journal." the last five years as the opinion editorial editor. from 1992-1994 he was an editor and writer at "the christian science monitor." >> thanks very much. is a pleasure to be here with all of you. isw has become a very influential and meaningful think .ank

it is an honor to be here with so many distinguished fellow panelists. you seem to be awfully busy, and rightly so. when i assess the situation in afghanistan, what other that is where we have come from early 2009, not that long ago, to today. it is an extraordinary leap we have made in a relatively short time. i can remember visiting afghanistan in early 2009. it was really a very sleepy, back water theater. we had only about 30,000 troops. it did not matter what the generals were saying, you cannot do effective counter insurgency when you only have 30,000 troops. we did not have the

infrastructure or an agenda beyond doing a holding action. all that has changed. there is now since for the first time in nine years that we are actually in afghanistan to win and that we are getting resources and strategy necessary to prevail. that does not mean we are armed to transform afghanistan into a country as peaceful as switzerland any time soon, but that does not have to be the culprit all have to do is create a in afghanistan that can police its own borders. there has been marked improvement over the course of the last several years. we have gone from pure than 150,000 afghan security forces to more than 250,000, in their quality is up because there's more intensive training. salaries are higher. desertion rates are lower trade that is along with the surge in american forces from 30,000 to 100,000. there are 40,000 allied forces

there. for the first time we have a possibility of implementing a serious counterinsurgency strategy. that is what our forces are doing today in the pivotal centers of taliban activity in the south. i saw for myself this summer that in fact the strategies that have worked in numerous countries also work in afghanistan. i saw that jus visiting an area where t marines when in wel over a year ago. it was a virtual ghost town run by the taliban. today it is safe enough that you then walk around without a bodyguard. schools that were closed have reopened. stores have reopened. political and economic development is on the right track. nawa is a little bit further

along than other areas, but other areas are on a similar trajectory. the marines will be able to create the same kind of security conditions then to allow a transition to the hold and build phase as they have already done in nawa. the area around caen are has been the hotbed of the insurgency. that cleared the taliban out of areas which have been taliban strongholds fomany years. we will not have the full measure of success of those operations for a while because it is one thing to clear them out, but you have to hold onto what you are getting. it is vitally important that our troops be able to hold on next summer when there will be inevitable counter-offensive. these are not the usual in and out operations we have done for nine years. these are serious

counterinsurgency plans being implemend, which of course involves not only keeping the enemy out but also moving into the population to kp the enemy from coming back in. i'm pret confident all the security front. i think we are making good progress and will continue. the two areas that will remain the most problematic will be the hardest to do with. safe havens in pakistan, a issues of governance and corruption within afghanistan. let me briefly addressed the safe haven issue, which has already been discussed extensively by my colleagues. with do not have a magical solution for solving the problems of pakistan. i don't think anybody does. i don't think there will turn off all their support for the afghan taliban any time in the near future. but we can safeguard afghanistan against foreign interference.

we can make it much harder for these insurgent groups, whether they have pakistan support or not, to reach the kind of havoc anmiscef they haveeen able to do over the last several years. the model have in mind is columbia. it is another proof of concept of how programs can more successfully. farq continues to exist because it receives outside support from venezuela and other neighbors. and yet today, but was shot is safe. you can move around without security. -- yet today, bogata is safe.

if we can get afghanistan right in terms of security and governments, and i believe we are on the right track, it will not matter that much ithe taliban still has save havens in pakistan. they will not be a strategic threat to the future of afghanistan. beyond the issue of increasing the level of security in the south, the other critical element of counterinsurgency success is increasing the level of governments and decreasing the level of corruption. thats something that alienates people from the government and is the best recruiting agent that the taliban has. thankfully, in some ways, some of this problem has been made by our own efforts. for years, we have pred billions of dollars into afghanistan without having a large number of troops on the ground. we essentially tried to buy security on the cheap bar rescue troops from warlords and power

brokers. but that has done is to vastly increase the level of corruption and to increase the power of some of the most hated powerbrokers within the country, the very people o were driving the afghans into the arms of the taliban. that is actually something that we can control. we are not waiting on the afghan legal system to move against corrupt government officials. we can have a major impact ourselve simply by getting a grip on our spending and making sure that our contractor and dollars are not doing corruption. that is something that is happening right now for the first time. general petraeus has put one of the most gifted officers of the entire army in charge of a task force, charg with reducing corruption and getting hold of our own spending. that is something general petraeus understands will be a vital part of our success.

that is something we are focusing on really for the first time right now freed one of the issues has been that other agencies of the u.s. court have not seen the importance of dealing with corruption. there have been well-documented reports to a lot of war lords. that is something we have to be concerned about. we need the unity of effort approach here to do with corruption and make sure tt is a major issue that we are hoping to create good governments in afghanistan rather than helping to create warlordism. the greatest asset we have on our side, beyond a vast military capabilities of the services, beyond the capabilities that the nato and security forces bring, the greatest asset we have is the goodwill of the people of afghanistan. this is not what the 1980's when

soviets turn the entire country against them. we are not seen by and large as an invading force. support for the taliban is very low. the people of afghanistan have ied taliban rule and they did not like it. fewer than 10% today it would like to see a return to the taliban. nearly 70% support the nato mission in afghanistan. i would suspect a number would be considerably higher if we get a better job of keeping law and order. that is the number-one threat, we are there but we're not addressing the threat by the taliban. as a historian of counterinsurgency and insurgency, that c determine the success -- to have the people on their side. at the end of the day, the people there not want to see a return to taliban role. that is why i think we have an excellent chance to succeed. it will not be quick or easy.

there's still a hard fight ahead. >> thank you, max. we appreciate your comments very much. i think we did a good job of providing you with an information and stimulating some questions for you. we have a microphone in the middle of the room. we have somebody that will take charge of that. i would like you to ask a single question as opposed to multiple questions so everybody can he a shot at this and we will have plenty of time for questions. yes, sir. >> i wanted your reaction -- this is for all of you -- of the tanks we are investing now. is it a good idea or a bad idea? >> the question is the tanks that were asked for by the command in afghanistan -- many

of us abstract our head a little bit as to why they had not been there before. given the success we enjoyed with them during the counterinsurgency in iraq. we have been very successful as long as they were coupled with ground troops wh them. i think the commanders recognize that a tank accompanied a and century is aormidable weapons system. you can't knock down a wall with the gun if someone is sitting behind that wall. it is an intimidating piece of equipment and weapons system on its own. without that to be true in iraq. you can't compel other people's will just by its presence. that is a factor. it also provides protection for our troops. it takes one whale of thean

ied to defeat it. the tell that does not have the weapons systems to defeat it. someone will start providing them to them given the presence of those tanks. my answer to that is it is a good thing that we may see more of them if it turns out to be at the commanders think it will be and that is an effective weapons system. >> but add to that, the decision by general pretorius approved the dispatch of those tanks blows a big hole in one of the myths about counterinsurgency because some people suggest it descend on realistic kind of approach that you are trying to win hearts and minds, you're not doing the hard putting necessary to defeat the enemy. nothing could be farther from the truth. successful cnter insurgency means moving troops among the people to do civil interaction projects. it combines all that with very

hard-headed kinetic action. general petraeus is surging american efforts across the full spectrum of activities. he is increasing efforts to bring electricity to cities and increasing air strikes, putting pressure on the insurgent networks across a whole spectrum of activity. that is what it takes to be successful. nobody should imagine that american commanders are under some kind of misapprehension that they can win over the taliban by demonstrating we are nice guys. there is a hard court at to be killed or captured. you have to be careful when using force to not kill innocent people. we can increase air strikes pretty dramatically while not seeing an increase in civilian casualties. that is because for the first time we have boots on the ground.

we have excellent intelligence. we can take out and search it safe havens very precisely in a way we were not able to do before

>> thank you, general. thank you to each of you for coming and for your contributions to the public debate and raising awareness of ground troops. thank you for your presentation. there seems to be a consensus among you that right now prosecution of the counterinsurgency strategy is making real progress. everything i hear from battalion level and special operations people indicates that. what i also hear, however, is that there is a persistent worry, some would say bitterness, occasionally hatred about the government. it is in kabul but also the district village level. if we continue to make progress on the battlefield and that facilitates the drawling down and turning over of deep security requirement to afghan forces, what about governance? it it remains corrupt, somewhat dysfunctional, and not really a coalition -- can that remain stable? the corollary is, is it possible? our wheat focusing on how to

broaden that government and make it more expressive of the real -- are we focusing on how to broaden that government and making get more expressive of the real situation? >> if the government issue is one of the many challenges we are facing in afghanistan. you normally face them in other counterinsurgency efforts as well. the reason why insurgents exist is a general grievance against the sitting government that people are willing to take arms and do something about. the reality is that the approach that is being taken, particularly dealing with corruption, is a balanced approach. number one, as max mentioned, we are going to watch the dollars given to them because they are lining the pockets of the enemy. that has to stop.

we have a task force doing that. as a matter of course, we will start to deal with the predatory nature of corruption as it affects the people. it affects them in harassment taxation of the roads inside the villages. we are close to them now. in the past, we were not. we are right there with them. we are right there with them. at whatever level we can act to do something about it we will do that at whatever level we can act to do something about it we will do that even if it has to get to the general officer level. what we will not do isgnore it. that is what is happening now. the egregious level of corruption that takes place in the ministries, particularly in security ministries, those will be identified and brought to in most cases to resolution. to resolution. the other thing is the

corruption at the higher levels of government will be dealt with in private and not in public. there will be no beginning of the chest about some of victory over having accomplished something with a governme official as it pertains to corruption. it will be done privately. we have had a lot of success with this in iraq with general petraeus working privately with maliki and egregious nature of his opponents. we took action because we had evidence. indisputable evidence -- so stop talking about the generalities and get to the specifics. if we do not have the specifics and then start talking about it. as mr. mcfarlin was talking about, that is a real challenge for us. we will continue to work with that.

there are really good people out there at the local level that are courageous and to make a difference. there are others who should not be there. we will work through that. at the end of the day, we cannot solve all of these problems in the timeframe we have. that is the reality. i hope we can turn this over to afghan national security bourses who can continue to provide stability and security. i am comfortable that we can make some changes at the local level to improve the to provideance responsibility to the people. it is a challenge and it will continue to be a challenge probably right up until the time we leave. >> i want to speak to this question a little bit. it is a terribly important question. i agree with much of what general keane said.

let me try to raise your confusion to a higher level of detail. [laughter] first of all, we do need to take responsibility for our actions. that has two pieces. one is the things we do on the ground. the second piece is our national interest. these are quite separate problems. yet we get down to a level of detail that we not -- that we do not normally do in washington. we are in the process now of trying to get a handle on contractors who are very corrupt with our money. let me give you a specific example. contractors attacked other contractors in kandahar. they d so because they think americans are leaving soon and they want to make a bundle. when you give a contract to the

afghan equivalent of a minority contractor, you have an expectation that he will be attacked not onlby the taliban but by people on our side. there are a variety of things we can do to deal with that. it is not a hopeless situation. but when you make the per step, you better know what you are doing and how you deal with those problems as they come because if we find our logistics are being seriously impacted because the new contractors cannot deliver, we will have to either secure the new contractors, which we do not want to use the force to do, or you back off and go back to the old contractor, in which case you supper a large political defeat. this is a solvable problem. i raise it because i want to underline how difficult it is to deal with the problems. it depends on your execution of policy that you get to a correct

decision about policy. on t larger global of government corruption, i do believe that weust deal with the incoherence of our old message. i say it is incoherent because of the question of how soon we are going to leave. as long as afghans at senior levels believe that we are leading rapidly, there are two logical responses. one is i have to steal more because i will have to run. the other is a i have to build up a network of local commanders who will fight for me because i will not be there when the americans leave. i have enough -- those are very afghan responses. as lonas people believe that, our dialogue of the harm corruption dusted the nation, which is absolutely true, is completely irrelevant.

afghans have a model for survival if we leave too soon. that model is hal the -- that model is how the former leader of afghan survive. there were two massive attacks by the mujahedeen helped by the pakistani army using artillery. i heard some accounts that they lost 10,000 people. they failed. if the had held on until the fall of the soviet union cut all his funding after which he could no preserve his network of alliances. as long as there is a strong doubt about our will to remain, there it will be a strong logic for afghan the leaders to try to maintain these militia forces in which case our arguments about

why those do violencin the war do not compete much. i raise this because it is directly relevant to the message we radiate in washington. we cannot deal with corruption as much as we want to only on the basis of our recriminations in kabul. we will have to deal with it in part as a part of our national will. i do agree with what general keane said about dealing with it in private. our people action over and ove has been to try to deal with corruption in very western ways. we have to havthe task force and it has to be investigatory and left alone. we go and arrest a guy who may be crupt as the double, but is also a key component of president karzai's political support. it the space arrested, they will

pullpart -- if he stays at arrested, they will pull from the government. we go in and have a fit about corruption with the consequences should have been completely clear. if we are able to do what general keane is talking about a deal with this privately, we can make some major impact. but that means we have to do something we are very bad at with a very big government with a lot of pieces, which means we have to know what our pieces are doing. before the arrest takes place, we have to think about it what to do the arrest. do we want to try to contain it? is it possible to do those things? the only reason i am going on and on about this is because you really need to understand one, the degree of complexity and bald and, too, the degree to

which our own purposes and old will are to carry out the mission. >> all of this is well and good, but it is not a message of -- it is not a question of punitive measures. it it is good governance you are looking for, it has to begin at the committee level, which means finding all party and power to the community and beginning with the muses it -- beginning with the municipality as a key component of government. i say this because our own center is looking at this issue now. we feel that if you take away appointauthority to teachers and policeman, you are going to give us some position of strength to the local believe that they have ownership.

they will protect that against the taliban and anyone else he wants it disrupted. i think that model has to be turned around and taken from the community urath than from kabul down. >> you have to do with the fact that if you are not very careful, what you'll do is at the bulk power to the very corrupt holders of power who are in the province. there is a lot of tension between giving power to the corrupt. this is really important. we have, in my judgment, too many people, civilians and military, who are operating locallon the belief that kabul does not matter because it is incompetent. the latter is true. when you deal with try to set up things on the local level whether it is police force or government, what you create is a

deal of suspicion and what you find is that kabul does not had the ability to do things well. it has the ability to screw up what we are doing. the belief that we are creating "says piers it -- we are creating local conspiracies. you may get good people removed and that we had a fit about it. it requires a cost that coordination between what we are doing on the ground and what we are doing and talking about in kabul. the line in president obama's note that we will work with karzai where we can and work around him were we must is not going to be dismissed in kabul. they come to believe there is a

local conspiracy. let me give you a historical case -- the british with the government of helmut. they built them up in the press. they ignored kabul. a lot of things are going right, but enormous frictions. when he was removed, there were three days in which president karzai refused to take a telephone call from london. the message of that refusal was it is still my country. you cannot run us out. we have now enormous assets that we did not have in my time. >> we have to move on. >> we have to be very careful how we use those assets. we have a delusion of understanding power dynamics and if we are not careful and exaggerate our abilities on the ground we are going to hurt

ourselves. >> next question. >> this is a question of defining terms. i know this is an ongoing debate. in terms of our international interest, what is the best case scenario if we succeed and the worst-case scenario if we fail in terms of us and what is the reasonable timeframe to answer that question? >> i would just answer it as their historic 10 -- i would just answer it as a historian. prior to the communist coup in 1978, there is this notion that afghanistan is hell on earth. it has been a country longer than the united states h been around and lager that pastan has been around. in the '50s and '60s it was seen as a model third world country where tourist wet.

it was a hit the destination. you can get a taste of what life was like before the war. that is the ultimate best-case scenario of what afghanistan can look like. we will not achieve that any time soon. it is helpful to think about that and understand that afghanistan is not a country consigned to perpetual war. that is someing that has been thrust upon them b a a a course events. they are hungry for decent and accountable government. if we help them get there, we will create a strategic ally in the region that will help us deal with pakistan and many others. on the other hand, if we pull out precipitously, it is pretty easy to see wt will happen. it will be a repeat of the 1990's when you sell the country torn apart by civil war, when trouble was getting shelled every day, when human-rights abuses were occurring. the taliban promise to return to

some kind of law and order. as we know, their promises or hollow. their offer was not good governance. they offered this horrible with totalitarianism, which the people thought was a horrible type of government, but if we see afghanistan once again becoming a place where there is no significant support for central authority, you can expect that kind of civil war and the rise of the taliban. by the way, the taliban and still have very close links with al qaeda. prior to 9/11, afghanistan will come to be a place for terrorists to hide. >> does anybody else want to add to that? thank you. next question. >> always like to pick up on

something brought up -- >> would you bring the micropyle up -- would you bring the microphone up? >> i am just curious, has the government of pakistan done enough to increase the capacity of the frontier corps? >> yes they have. the u.s. is planning a huge role in that. it has to geven further down into the community level to the people who live on inside the committee and or from the community. in terms of the changes in the frontier corps, from being a backwater with the dregs of the pakistan army used to be set, it is now a place where any aspiring young officer who was to make a mark wants to go

because it allows them to fight. more recently, a good sign of that was when after many years, a brigadier from the frontier corps was promoted to major- general. he is now being brought back from having commanded to become the head of the frontier korda. the frontier corps, within the last two years, has improved tremendously. it is much more capable of looking after the local situation. >> anybody else what to answer that? next question. yes, sir? >> i would just like to ask a little bit more about or that more about president

karzai's. it is important to grade the turnabout to which they are able to take over. is there any contradiction? is there a concern about the operations of general petraeus is embarked on? >> do you want to start with that? >> yes. the nature of counterinsurgency is full of contradictions. you got to get used to it. you are always going to be trying to tread a balance. the increasing tempo of attas against -- by special forces type units against insurgents has had a considerable measure -- has had a considerable measure of success.

you have two issues that you have to deal with that may be involved. one is afghans are very sensitive about this stuff and they have tremendously long memories. thatntake what happened five years ago it what happened yesterday into one picture. two years and yesterday are the same. it is hard to get unstuck. you have a funny perceptions. i remember they did an investigation after one big battle where they claimed the dutch had killed a lot of civilians. one afghan explained that he -- that they kill his opera. he was asked what is all i did. he said he was shooting.

yet these problems you have to work your way through. remember that president karzai is constantly on the telephone. it is good, it is bad, but everybody is calling. he vibrates through this popular discontent and he has a problem that we have, in his view, not responded to over a number of years. i think that view is exaggerated, but we have learned that it -- he has learned that if we do not respond to him, he goes to the press. we will have to live with the contradiction, but i think we are on the right track. but we will have to continue to provide a very high level of detail about what we are doing. there will not be an easy answer to this one. >> first of all, president

karzai is aware of the ture and character of all our operations. he gets briefed on some level of detail in terms of what is taking place. with those operations are classic counterinsurgency operations or whether they and all of special operations rces. he is very much up to date in terms of the progress we are making and what the issues are as a result of that. general petraeus has continuous meings with president karzai. i uld describe it a cooperative relationship, yet a firm relationship they have with each other. they speak very frankly with each other. number one, the president is well informed as to what is taking place. i think the ambassador put his finger on it. i would just express it a little differently. president karzai has been in power for nine years.

he is on his sixth petraeus. he is seen expectations before. he is seen expectations not met before. he also has people to answer to. i think a lot of that was posturing for attention before the lisbon talks. he reminded everybody that he was head of the sovereign state and he had some issues inside of that. to look get that as a major divider from wha general petraeus is trying to accomplish, what nato is trying to accomplish, there is a major chasm there and we are going in different directions as a matter of policy would be wrong. matter-of-fact, they are on the same page again. that is the reality of it. it happened. it is unfortunate. it got people of trust -- a got a poor frustrated about it, but

i think a the karzai net for that to take place. mission accomplished. >> the heads of state held a stake in showing that they are not american puppets and they have to stand up for the afghan people. they have said that the iraqi security forces to take over very soon, but he did not press the issue. he did not demand that our troops should leave because he understood that he needed our troops. i think president karzai understands the same thing. >> is there other question? thank you very -- update there is one. the wedding get the microphone -- go ahead and get the microphone. >> there seems to be a disagreement over whether the

authority over afghan security forces should be local. that disagreement did not seem to get fleshed out. >> i am not sure i am a match for ambassador in human -- ambassador newman. in my view we continue to use the word "we." we must do this, we must do that. out that the government in kabul and the government in the provinces -- afghanistan has had a way of balancing its various regions and interest. we can build up were wards or we can build up local interest grps that are not tied to the

war lords. there protect themselves against an inch -- but the taliban. as we go away from the border region, there is more likelihood that will happen. if we focus on some of the elements of local government that the afghans themselves can be one stepre will forward, two steps back initially and then the will be threeteps forward. the issue is the value of the ordinary afghan has is the same as the value of some one in idaho or iowa or washinon. we have to respect that and not had this kind of vanity that somehow we know what is good for them and that we will work it out and impose it on them. it is much better if we do it from within.

there will be debate and discussion, but i think it will have roots and it will outlast the coalition's presence afghanistan. >> i just want to piggyback on something he said, which is the importance of respecting afghan institutions andespecting the people of afghanistan. we have talked a lot about executive power of president karzai. there is also a lot of talk about the provincial district governors. we also need to keep min the checks and balances on executive power which calls for the legislative branch. there is a parliament. there is a large history of jurors and jurist. we hav to empower them and act as a check on executive authority. that is very much in line with traditional afghan tribal culte. that is something we should empower. unfortunately in the last decade

or so they said -- things have gotten out of whack. we have created a network of actors. part of the process of reform is not only to take away power from some of those actors, but also to empower those to speak up for the boys of the community at act as a check on the executive branch. >> i do not think there is a lo of disagreement here in principle. i totally agree with the issue of lifting some of these things grow out of afghanistan. i take it is important as we look at evolution in addition to not try to engineer too much ourselves, really be humble

about how much we know and understand -- to also reflect on how different afghanistan is from the afghanistan of the '70s. i actually did the did afghanistan first in 1967. my father was ambassador there. i spent 3.5 months traveling across the country. i still a lot of the place -- i saw a lot of the place. the trouble system of the '70s has been shattered by war. the tribal leaders have lost the cohesion they had in these cases. in 2005, all of afghanistan was one tried able to exercise and keep all the election of members. that is one measure of how fractured tribal leadership has become. tribal leaders have lost power

to commanders, what we call war lords. we have had a role in helping that in some cases. that does not mean it is not possible to develop power. we have to be very careful and have a lot of understanding or a lot of room for things to grow somewhat naturally in afghanistan and not assume that wean engineer it. by the way, i agree that tibet is something that looks like that passed e '70s. people did not expect as much from government. they have seen things they never solved in the '70s. in the '70s, people talked about the golden age of development. we have for less development projects and then then we have now.

as we deal with how things evolve, we will have to do with the reality of an enormously fractured society and be very careful that we are not standing up jurist without standing project -- without knowing who we are standing up. it is not a difference over the objective, it is a reminder of how complicated it is to work on. thank you. >> i will just add one thing, we are helping to strengthen the capacity of the ministries at the national level, some of them have a very fine leaders that the upper levels. they are not the level of maturity might expect. they can provide an increased measure of effectiveness.

those we are talking about where the local leaders come together to address the needs of their people is part of the country -- is very important. our command has routinely participated in that. it is pretty remarkable to watch that unfold as they grapple with local issues, which security is a part of that. that is what we are a part of that ourselves. we helped to strengthen that and assist in any way we can. they are their meetings, not our meetings. we are participating because they want us to participate. it makes sense for us to participate in it. january 2009, the people elected their own provincial leaders in iraq. every governor appnted by the central government he ran for office was not elected.

it was essentially an election of secular people purses' religious zealots. as a result, the people for the first time had a government that they had elected and was going to be held accountable to them. we do not have the form of government in afghanistan nor is it in e near future to run elections at the local level. that is certainly one of the challenges. we are trying to strengthen that local government for the same reason we do it was a seminal event in iraq. at the local level is where the people are and the government has an opportunity to be responsive to those people and assist them with their needs and services. given thrule of nature of the communities in afgnistan, it is even more of an issue as opposed to the urban nature of

what we were dealing with in iraq. i want to take my colleagues for participating on this panel and taking time out of their busy schedules. we appreciate all of the comments you have made here and all of you for attending and the fall questions that you asked. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> newly elected congressman are in office. the new members enter into a lottery which determines the order with which they will

choose the empty offices. here is a look at part of that lottery. >> he drew number 73. >> don't be nervous. >> she drew number 8.

>> mr. brooks. >> you are number 81. >> he drew number 84. [applause]

>> mr. rodriguez drew number 52. >> -- drew number 8. [applause] >> that is the whole thing. each lottery determines the number.

>> just your name. >> mr. pereira has chosen number 30. >> the next, senator elect lee and representative mike penn spent ouce. -- mike pence. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," jamie once been on the future of the republican party. -- jamie weinstein.

then a discussion about the food safety bill which is pending in the senate and the changes it makes the current policy. "washington journal," at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> like all men of considerable gifts, when they give up power, they are -- the moment they give it up. >> and morris examines the final years of teddy roosevelt's life. >> now mike pence and mike lee

speak at the federalist society. >> republican lawmakers are expected to discuss the gopthe federal society is an organization of conservative and libertarian leanings members. >> it is my privilege this afternoon to introduce u.s. senator elect might leak from utah -- u.s. senator elect mike lee of utah. senator lee opens up his biography with the following sentence -- discussing everything from the due process clause to the second on the net around the dinner table. [laughter] this guy is serious.

lest you believe this is a mere rhetorical flourish, i had it on good authority from people who saw and heard mike on the campaign trail that he spent much time talking quite seriously and quite specifically about the limits on government boards contained in our constitution and why they need to be respected. one current u.s. senator, who i will not name and whose asset i am about to butcher, said to me, "he is actually out there talking about the commerce clause." well, i expect we will be hearing more about that very soon. [laughter] [applause] mike lee served as the president of our byu law school chapter.

this may explain his campaign speeches, but it would not be fair for us to take all of the credit. he did clerk for his father who was arilliant lawyer who served as solicitor general of the united states under president ronald reagan. please join me in giving u.s. senator mike lee a hearty welcome. [applause] >> life for started campaigning, people will look at me kind of strange that we would discuss these kind of things around the dinner table. i was 38 or 39, which i now am,

that not everyone discussed particular clauses over potatoes. the u.s. constitution and many aspects of u.s. history were something of a second religion in our home. i remember conversations with my father about roe vs. wade. he explains the basic facts of the case. my response to him was that the insult this presents to the dignity of human kind, it overlooks the fact that there's nothing in the constitution which makes this a federal issue. was not think he realized i weird either. [laughter] i decided to get into this race

and to run for political office because i have come to believe that our federal governments too big and too expensive. i doubt there are many in this audience you disagree with me on that. but just in case there might be a few of you out there, i remind you about the fact that we have the federal government that has accumulated almost $14 trillion in debt. within a year's time we will have reached a $15 trillion debt. that is a lot of money. there are people in the united states of america today to do not make $15 trillion in an entire year. [laughter] it is sad, but true. if you divide $15 trillion by 300 million americans, it works out to $50,000 a head. a lot of people do not make that much money in a year.

if you divide it by the number of taxpayers we have in this country -- it is well over one to $25,000. that is a problem. the debt we are acquiring is unsustainable. it gets worse when you start to consider that we have unfunded entitlement liabilities that are estimated at $100 trillion -- some say even more than that. we do not know. the part that we do know is disturbing and has caused us to realize that we have a problem. the problem harkens back to it earlier times in our nation's history. a couple of centuries ago americans started expressing concern about a distant, powerful, national government -- not based in washington, d.c., it did not exist then. it was part of maryland. but a national government based

in london. attacked as too much and regulated as too heavily. it did not respect that quintessentially american principle of local, self rule. the idea that people government sells better than -- the idea that people govern themselves better than government does. this national government was so far from the people that it was slow to respond to their needs, even when it did respond. so the people came to an understanding that feels somewhat familiar to us, that national governments, by their very nature, do have a certain tendency towards tierney. they have a tendency to become tyrants unless their power is carefully checked. that remains true, and this tendency towards tyranny that national governments have regardless of whether it is run by the king on one hand, or by

an elected president, or by an elected president who thinks he is a king. [laughter] unless we restrict the power and put careful boundaries around it, tyranny will ensue. it is an inevitability. it is the nature and disability -- is the nature of mankind that this will happen. we as a country decided that we would reject this kind of natural government. after we became our own country, we put together our founding era document. we decided to come up with a list -- a list of powers we knew we had to have in our national government. we put forward that list in article one, section eight. with very few exceptions, every power the federal government has is found in article one, section eight. it is all too frequently overlooked.

we decided to give congress the power to regulate things like interstate and foreign commerce, to take care of our national defense issues, to develop laws governing immigration, what they call naturalization back then, to establish a uniform system of weights and measures, to declare war, to regulate federal public lands, and there are a few others including my personal favorite power of congress -- the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. we do not talk about that one as all but as we should all the we do in my house. [laughter] my children have come to regard that with great affection. but in case you missed that one in your last family discussion, a letter of marque and reprisal is basically a hall pass issued by congress that entitles the holder to engage in state-

sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the united states of america. it is the last thing i do, i am going to get a letter of marque and reprisal. i will be a pirate and you can all join me. [applause] my point in all of this, within that document, within this charter for our national government, there is no power to do all things that congress deems expedient. there is no power to make fairer -- there is no power to make life better and more equitable to americans. there are instead powers that james madison -- whose name this society reveres -- described the powers of the federal

government as few and defined. where as the powers reserved to the state, those lingering aspects of sovereignty, can be presumed to exist in the states unless they are not in here. that part was already implicitly clear in the main text of the constitution. it was made clear without any ambiguity or uncertainty in the 10th amendment. yet we are where we are. since the new deal era, every single year that combined expenditures of the 50 state governments has been significantly less than the expenditures of the federal government, that was never true before the new deal era. it has been true ever since the new deal era. i trace this back, boasted that, to the changes that occurred in our judas' purchase -- in our jurisprudence in the late

1940's. the court has been falling that now infamous standard that congress may regulate any and every activity can be said to substantially affect interstate commerce. we lawyers know that that is just legalese for a very simple concept -- congress may regulate any aspect of human existence. and yet there is not a single point up on weekend -- upon which we can be all certain that the founding dollars agreed that they were not creating a federal government with general police powers. they were not creating an all- purpose of national government. not one of those would have signed their names to this document and not whether states

would have ratified this document if they believed what they were ratifying was anything other than a limited-purpose national government. [applause] i have been told since high school that i need to bury the hatchet when it comes to wicker v. filburn. my high-school history teacher was fantastic. he used to tell me to get over it. the federal government is big and we all benefit from it. that ship has sailed. leave it alone. i do not want to. i do not think i can. [applause] you say, because the king's court threw in 1787 remain true

-- uc, because the things that were true in 1787 remain true today. we are experiencing the best evidence that those guys were right. we would not be in a position where we are facing a $15 trillion debt with 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlement liabilities if they simply respected these basic precepts, if they stuck to the program, if they focused on those things that they are supposed to be doing. i mean look, there is only so much you can spend granting letters of marque and reprisal, right? the solution, i believe, lies not with an attempt of the federal judiciary to roll back legal precedent. do not get me wrong. i love baathist -- i would love it if that happened. i applaud those states who have attacked president obama's health care plan in the courts.

even under that president, this -- that precedent, this health care plan crosses the line. the american congress is telling the american people that they may have to buy a specific product today may not want. -- product they may not want. i applaud the efforts. i do not believe that they can return us to what i referred to as constitutionally limited government fast enough to get us out of the mess the we are now facing. i believe, hope and expect that in time we will have a supreme court in which the majority of justices will decide that the standard adopted previously utterly obliterates that doctrine. until that time, what to do? i believe we can do something

that will not have to take years or even decades to complete. we have, as it turns out, not just one branch in our federal government. we have three. and only one of them is controlled by people with lifetime appointments. the other ones you can vote for. the problem is that in the political branches over the last 75 years, members of congress in both houses of both political parties have seen that the supreme court answer is always yes, really with only two exceptions, the united states versus lopez in 1995 being one and the united states inverses -- verses morton being the other. in every other case where the question is, does this accede congress's commerce power, the answer has been no. the answer has always been yes to congress. you can do this and nothing the courts can do will interfere. some members of congress have

stopped asking the question of whether they could, because the answer has always been yes. then they stopped asking whether they should. under article 6,each member of congress is required to take an oath to uphold the constitution. in my mind, that means more than doing that which you can get away with in court. we drove over year in a taxicab just a few minutes ago from my temporary space up on capitol hill. i do not know whether the cab driver exceeded the speed limit law at some point. he may have. he may not have. i was not watching. but the fact that we did not get a ticket on the way over does not mean that he was complying with the law. it just means a the did not get -- it just means that he did not get caught. so too with congress, especially when you consider the facts that, in many circumstances, very few people, if anyone, could be said to have standing to challenge certain actions taken by the federal

government. certain federal spending programs,especially when you consider that lawsuits and never get brought because of the perception of futility. it is not fair to say that just because the courts scarcely, rarely interfere with congress as exercise of authority that congress and members of congress are complying with their oath to uphold the constitution. what i am saying is that members of congress need to be held accountable, and need to hold themselves accountable to their oath, regardless of what the courts might be willing to enforce. that needs to become part of the american political discourse, the question of whether each member of congress, or each person pursuing an office in congress, will independently police and independently limit to the exercise of congressional authority out of respect, out of devotion to the principles of the american revolution, those the were embodied in our

founding-era document, principles that have been utterly ignored, i believe, for the last 75 years within the three political branches of the government. we must expect and we must demand more from our leaders, but it will not happen until we as voters and start the discussion, until we commence what i call, "the constitutional debate." when i first decided to get into this race, to run for the united states senate, i wondered, as a lawyer, am i speaking out on this to the point where i cannot see the inability of the young -- the voting lawyer public to grasp the importance of this? in audiences throughout my stay, -- state, i ran the basic history of wicker v philburn.

i explained the origins of the commerce clause and how its interpretations had evolved over time. people got it. they understood it. i continue the discussions after i got into the race, and sometimes my campaign staff had to get after me. they put down some pretty whorisharsh rules. they told me in most circumstances i could cite only one case in one speech. i could refer only one time to a specific identifying clause in article one section eight. i found all sorts of ways of getting around that, but the point is, people listened. people without any legal education can and do grasp these things, and they grasp it well. this is something that the american voting public can and should and must, and i believe well, understand, because it may well be that we can get out of the current mess that we face.

for the principal reason that renewed emphasis on federalism not just when the accords it did not just within the courts, but within the public, maybe the only non-partisan, non threatening way the week and based some of the problems that we have. -- that we can face some of the problems that we have. it is quintessentially american. the idea of self rule is an american idea. it is one that allows us to remain agnostic on many of the most fundamental and sometimes contentious questions that we face in government, questions considering such things as what, if any, is the role of government in the provision of health care? there are people on both extremes of the political spectrum who i believe could

find areas of common agreement with what i am saying. for example, there are people to the left of me politically to -- who would say that the only way out of our current health care crisis is to establish a single payer, government-run health care system. i want to be clear. i am not one of those people, in case there was any mistake. there are those who feel that way. fed many of them are just as adamantly hostile toward obama- care as i am . there are other people who say the government should never, ever get involved in the health care of the citizenry. it should be up to private institutions, families, churches and so forth. regardless of where you are on that spectrum or whether you're somewhere in the metal, i think it is much easier to get people

to the point of asking the additional question, not just whether government should get involved, but at which level? should it be at a national level or should it be at the state level? i think we can make a compelling argument, even one directed toward our radiological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. -- our ideological left, that would say it ought to be at the state level. you could do it far faster, with far more consistency, making it far more true to what you envision as the utopian ideal of the federal government providing, or a government providing this. if it is not the federal government, then the state. there are many people in vermont that would like to create such a system, a system that would be far easier if the federal government stayed out of this all together or at least avoided any further intrusion

into the realm of what is within a what states control. control. what state's it is already the unique prerogative of the states to licensed physicians, to license other health care professionals including nurses, to license hospitals and clinics, to regulate the provisions and the issuance of health insurance policies within this state, and to establish a system of laws governing medical malpractice lawsuits. states can bar more effectively, i believe, manage all of this rest -- states can a far more effectively, i believe, manage all of this or risk, rather than -- this risk, rather than having those decisions made at the national level. there are other practical decisions to be taken into account as well, geographic, demographic, and other

particularized circumstances that vary dramatically from one state to another. one state may be able to do far more for its people based on the money it is able to bring in and then another state may be able to do. in utah, for example, the average health care cost per person per year is about $3,800. in another state, it is over $8,000. there are similar disparities all over the country. if released big decisions at the state level, i believe they can be dealt with far more effectively and efficiently in a manner that is more respected to life, liberty and property that we as americans tend to cling to. that is the whole reason why we are here today and we are not speaking with a british accent and we do not wear wigs when we go into court. [laughter] [applause] not that there is anything wrong

with that. [laughter] i used to ask the justice alito whether we should not bring back the way to the court just to add to the decorum of the whole thing. he did not write off on that at all. he was not enthusiastic. my hope, my motivation for getting into this race has everything to do with restoring the debate, to the political branches of government. for my part, i pledged to my constituents at, and i repeat that pledged today, i will not vote for a piece of legislation that i cannot reconcile with the original intent of the constitution. [applause] to say that differently, if i cannot imagine myself explaining to james madison with a straight face why what i was

doing was consistent with the text and history of the constitution as it has been amended all 27 times, i will vote no. i will do every single time, regardless of what the president -- precedent says i can get away with -- precedent says i can get away with. there is a big difference, and it is a difference that i will honor, a difference that will guide me and will guide my every vote as a u.s. senator. my hope is that by making this part of the american political discourse, as it once was, and i believed it was for the first 150 years of our operation under the u.s. constitution, we will as a people be able to come to some consensus as to what powers might be long more properly at the state level. this does not mean less government overall, necessarily.

this does not mean that we cannot provide certain services to provide a social safety net to people. but it may mean that we refocus our attention away from the federal government in some instances and for the states, that we will be pushing some power out of the federal government where it will be received by the states. we need people pushing that power out of washington, and we need other people on the other end to a bullet into the states. -- ready to pull it into the states. i believe they can and will. i believe we can do it and we will do it. may god bless the sovereign united states of america. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the senator is going to take two very quick questions, and they need to be short so we have time for an answer. in the back. >> congratulations on your election. my name is steve. i have a question for you. there is a debate about the proper role of senators in the confirmation process of the federal judiciary, whether senators should just make sure that judges are competent and not cronies, or whether they should really scrutinize their beliefs. i wonder what your thoughts are on that. >> we are not there to just

check a box. we are there to look for obvious -- we are not there to look for obvious pathologies and say, has this nominee ever been convicted of a federal offense? ok, the answer is no. the box is checked. did this person graduate from law school and passed the bar exam? i think we are there to do more than that. in my case, that means a thorough examination into whether or to what extent each nominee understands his or her commitment to the constitution and to the laws of the united states. i will be looking into the idea of contextualism. this old-fashioned notion that our laws consisting of words and our words have meaning, many of which have been ignored, will lead to anarchy. that is what will guide me. >> who do you perceive in the

senate will be an ally to your pledge to examine every piece of legislation along a constitutional litmus test? >> we have a few there already who feel this way. i want to be very careful. this is a ceg reference only. we had a role to speak no latin. -- rule we had -- no latin. i told my staff today that i can keep out -- geek out all i want, these are my people. [applause] my c.e.g. reference is to jim demint and tom coburn.

among others,i would also include rand paul from kentucky, marco rubio from florida. rob portman from ohio. there are others as well. this is not something that is unique to any one senator. unfortunately, it has been too rare. fortunately, it will be rare no more. [applause] >> thank you very much. we look forward to having you here in washington and that many -- at many of these gatherings as well as others.

thank you very much. [applause] we are going to move right into our next address. if we could have the congressmen and david come to the platforms. >> thank you. it is great to be back again. i am here for a very brief purpose right now, to introduce our next speaker. he is a dear friend of mine from before i ran for congress. it is my congressman from the sixth district of indiana. he has been on the judiciary committee and is knowledgeable of those issues, most recently as no. 3 in the republican leadership, and somebody that many, many people say is going to be a leader not only in our party but in our country. he has given an interesting talk that i have asked him to share with us today on his view

of the presidency and the constitutional parameters for that office. so, without further ado, let me give you mike pence. [applause] >> thank you, david mcintosh. i not only followed him to this podium, but i followed him to congress. he was a tough act to follow in 2000, and we have been huffing and puffing to keep up with david mcintosh, one of the storied founders of the federalist society. thank you for your leadership and your friendship. [applause] my topic today is the presidency. and the constitution.

and my remarks are derived from a speech that i had the privilege to give at a college just a few months ago. i bring it today as a matter of first importance. as our nation embarked on the process of considering not only this president and a presidential contest, but it is my hope that our nation will consider the presidency itself. it is in that spirit and before this distinguished group of legal minds that i bring my remarks today. the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not for good or for ill it sets the tone for the other branches and it spurs the expectations of the people. its powers are vast and consequential. its requirements from the outset and by definition are

impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and a consistent attention to its purposes as set forth by the constitution of the united states. is it not amazing? given the great nature of the office, those seeking it should take pause. rather, there is a matter rush toward something that once its powers are seized can be wielded as an instrument. the nation and the people can be transformed according to his highest aspirations. other than in a crisis of a house divided, the presidency is neither fish nor intended to be such an instrument. when it is made that, the country sustains a wound and cries out justly and indignantly. what the country says, the theme of this address, what it says impelled by its long

history, quite naturally and rightly, what it may well have set on november the second, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. [applause] it says that the president should never forget this, that he is not risen above us but is merely one of us. he is chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision according to the design laid out in the constitution and impassioned by the declaration of independence. the presidency must adhere to the definition expressed in the the constitution and the conduct of find overtime and tradition. while the powers of the of the

seven large, along with those of -- office has been large, along with those of th the legislature and the judiciary, the framework is different. without proper adherence to the role defined in the constitution of the presidency, checks and balances become weakened. this has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the congress at times, and that the congress is independent of their desires. fused in an unruly unity, the political class has reached -- raged forward with an expansion of power and prerogatives mistakenly believing that power is by definition good. -- by default to do good. even among the simplest among

us, that is not so. power is an instrument of fatal consequence. it is defined no more readily than quicksilver and escapes intentions as easily as air flows through a mesh. those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self restraint. a republic, if you can keep it, is about limitation, and for good reason. we are mortal. our actions are imperfect. the tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best of choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind. some, perhaps many, may die. because of this, a true statesman lives in what churchill called a "stress of soul." he may give to call but only because he is robs peter. -- he may get to paul, but only because he robs peter. that is why we should be wary of a president that seems to float on his own greatness.

all greatness is tempered by mortality and every soul is evil. this has seldom been better expressed than by thurgood marshall's dictum. thurgood marshall said that we should, "to do of what we think is right and left the law catch- up." laws are being written that are so long that no human could read them in a lifetime, let alone implement them, let alone give people the feeling that they are being asked, not told. our nation too often finds itself in the position of a dog

whose position is to simply obey, but america is not a dog. it does not require a "because i said so" jurisprudence, to which it is then demanded to catch up. it does not require laws of such complexity that they are heavier than chains or a presidentia who acts like, speas like, and is received like a king. [applause] the presidency has run off the rails. it begs a new clarity, a new discipline, a new president. [applause] thepresident is not our teacher, our two-tier, our guide or our roller. he does -- our tutor, our guide or our ruler.

reserve neither him nor his vision. it is not his job to redefine custom, a lot, believes, to -- custom, law, beliefs, to appropriate industry, or to impose justice some 300 million people. it is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from the people to him and to the acolytes of his choosing. is my characterization of unprecedented resumption -- presumption incorrect? i deferred to the judgment of the people which they will make in their own eyes and their own ears, but listen to the exact words of president obama's transition team, who said at the point of his election, "it is important that president obama is prepared to take power and began to rule day one."

or more recently, the new head of the financial consumer bureau wrote, "president obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field." take power, rule, leveling. though it is now, this has never again and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the american president. [applause] no one can say this too strongly. no one can say it enough until it is remedied. we are not subjects. we are citizens. [applause] we fought a war so we do not even have to treat kings like

kings, and if i may remind you, we won that one. [applause] the powers of the presidency are extraordinarily and unnecessarily great, and great president and treat them -- great presidents treat them sparingly. no finer, more moving understanding of the nature of the presidency has ever spent -- been expressed, in my judgment, then by president coolidge. he was the son of 16. "the day i became president," college wrote. -- coolidge wrote. he had to started to work in a tobacco field when a co-worker said, "if my father were president, i would not have to work in a tobacco field," to which calvin coolidge replied, "if my father were your father, you would."

[laughter] his affection for the boy was obvious, and his admiration. the president's son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the south lawn. he wrote words that resonate with many parents in the room. he wrote, "and what might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if i had not been president," and then he continued, "in his suffering, he was asking me to make him well, but i could not, and when he went, the power and glory of the presidency went with him." a sensibility like this, not power, is the source of presidential and dignity, and

it -- presidential dignity, and it must be restored. it depends entirely on character, a discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic of life -- the republic, but life itself. it communicates the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself. he relies not on his own prospects but on the star of -- the storm of history, through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon him not merely by man but by god. in the capitol rotunda are heroic paintings, the signing of the declaration, the victory at yorktown, and a painting that depicts a general, the leader of an armed rebellion,

resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. upon hearing from benjamin west the george washington, having won the war, urged by some to make -- to use the army to make himself king, but having surrendered instead, he said, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. he did, and he was. [applause] to aspire to such a virtue and self restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense, it should be easy. difficult because it would be demanding an ideal, and easy because it is just the right thing to do and the rewards are immediate and self-evident.

a president to slight the constitution is like a writer -- rider who hates his horse. he will be thrown. [laughter] [applause] and the nation along with him. the president solemnly swears to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. he does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement or reinterpreted. -- read interpret it -- reinterpret it. other than a crisis of morality, decency and division, like the civil war, if he should want to change the constitution to fit his own designs, he should do so by amendment. he adjusts the power of the office by his own willful interpretation, and with the planned debate government of -- and we supplant the government a lot with the government of men. -- of law with the government of men.

they should be on his mind all the time, a prism through which the light of all governments pass. sometimes we have moved erratically away from this. we can move back. who better than the president to restore the scope and devotion -- this hope and devotion? at home, the president must be cautious. abroad, his character must change. were there to be a primer on how to act with other states, and none has been needed up until this point, you could be confident it would contain the following. first, you do not about to kings. -- bow to kings. [applause]

outside our borders, the president of the united states bows to no man. in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. [applause] you do not argue the case against the united states but rather the case for it. [applause] you do not apologize to the enemies of the united states of america. [applause] now, should you be confused, let me help. a country, people or region the harbors, shelters, supports, encourages or cheers attacks upon our country are enemies of the united states of america and you do not apologize to them. [applause]

closely related to this and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president's complex responsibilities is his duty as commander in chief. in this regard there is a very simple rule, and noun to some residents, regardless of party. -- unknown to some presidents, regardless of party. if, and it is the biggest if a president can face, for it will follow him and cost lives, and death, and it is and if that requires -- if, and it is an if the requires deep thought, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of the general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the

heart of an infantryman, if, after careful collaboration, -- deliberation, intense stress of soul and the deepest prayer, if then you go to war, then having gone to war, by god, you go to war to win. [applause] you do not cast away american lives for those -- or those of the innocent noncombatant on a theory. if the politics of your election or your own party intrude on your decision for even an instant, there are no words for this. more commonplace but hardly less important are other expectations of the president in this regard. you must not stand on the provisioning of our armed forces.

the error must be on the side of surplus, not scarcity. he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single american life. the american soldier is precious as even the closest of your kin, because he is your kin. for his sake, the president must say to the congress and to the people, i am the commander in chief. it is my sacred duty to defend the united states of america and to give our soldiers what they need to complete their mission and come home safe. [applause] in fulfilling this duty, if the president waivers, he will have betrayed his office. this is not policy. it is probity. it is probity.