[applause] and in the final days of the fighting, a regiment in the east it is a shame that it had to come to this. it is a shame that it had to division of the third army came come to somebody on a comedy under fire. channel to make them take a look the men were traveling along a at themselves. narrow trail. thank you for getting it done. we appreciate its. they were exposed and vulnerable. hundreds of soldiers were cut >> thank you, bill. down by the enemy. during the firefight, a private thank you agree or extraordinary advocates -- thank you for your extraordinary tumbled 40 feet down the deep advocacy and hard work. >> there are so many people to side of the ravine. thank. i could have never expected dazed and attract, he was as good as dead. this to be this way. but one soldier, a friend, turned back. this has united our country together. we are still fighting two wars i with shells around him amid smoke and chaos and the screams as -- as a result of 9/11. of wounded men, the soldier, i think this historic event will

this friend scale down the icy truly unified the country. it is truly a christmas miracle. slope, risking his own life to bring the private to safer on behalf of our president, the ground. for the rest of his years, he iformed fire officers credited this soldier, this association, the 7000 active friend with saving his life. members and retired from our organization -- we have so many people to thank. it started in the house and, knowing he would never have made hot out alone. ironically, it will end up in the house. i want to thank congresswoman it was for decades after the carolyn maloney along with peter war -- four decades after the came who worked so diligently war that he learned that the man prodng his republican colleagues. who saved his life, his friend we cannot thank him enough. mike mcmahon who will be our andy, was gay. friend for life. he had no idea. the entire new york delegation indeed didn't much care. -- anthony wiener, joe crowley, he knew what mattered. i can go on and on. he knew what had kept him alive

and what made it possible for my senators, now -- i hope every him to come home and start a citizen in our country feels the same way i feel about these two family, live the rest of his life. senators. it was his friend. i feel truly blessed to have two extraordinary legislate to his son is with us today. worors. he knew his valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual thank you kirsten gillibrand. thk you chuck schumer. orientation than by race, thank you, thank you, thank you. gender, religion, hoare krieg. i like to thank the general what made it possible for him to president of the international survive the battlefield of association of firefighters along with his staff. europe is the reason that we are here today. [applause] they are not here because of a that is the reason we are here catastrophic event in chicago. today. there is a burning building. there was a collapse. [applause] we have lost two firefhters in chicago and two are critically injured. i want to thank the president of the new york afl-cio. this morning, i am proud to cite the is a labor icon and has been a lot that will bring an end the working for passage of this for

don't ask, don't tell. seven years. [applause] i also want to thank a woman to -- sign a law that will bring an get all of these fractionalized groups together. end to don't ask, don't tell. she did an extraordinary job. it will strengthen national security in double the ideals that men and women risk their lives to defend. john martell, standing right no longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic americans that were behind me. [applause] forced to leave the military regardless of their skills. john utilized much equity and no matter the years of exemplary shared his magnificent relationship with both of the senators. performance. we thank them. we thank him. no longer will they be asked to live a lie. or look over their shoulder and finally, to the real heroes -- ordered to serve the country that they love -- in order to the people who stand behind me. excuse me, there are more. serve the country that they love. [applause]

admiral mike mullen has said ed kelly, rich parish -- th that our people sacrificed a lot for their country. including their lives. did an extraordinary job. the of them should have to the real heroes are those behind sacrifice their integrity as me. well. they answered the call when their country was attacked -- none of them should have to during an act of war. sacrifice their integrity as well. [applause] domestic veterans, each and everyone. god hold you in the pond -- god hold you in the palm of his hand, each and everyone. that is why i believe it is the god bless erica. right thing to do for our [applause] military, that is why i believe it is the right thing to do >> i want to thank elliott for period. all his hard work. many thought long and hard to the has been an advocate d reach this day. fighter every step of the way. our last speaker is someone i want to think the democrats and republicans that put they' not only has a way with conviction ahead of politics to get this done together. words, but he is someone who [applause] always speaks from the heart. that is where the truth comes from. we have no better advocate, no

better friend, no better allied and john feal. i want to recognize nancy he said he would make a pelosi. [applause] difference in this legislation. he said he personally would bring his will on this congress to do the right thing. steny hoyer. [applause] that will is so extraordinarily and harry reid. strong. [applause] despite all of the challenges he faces with his own health, he has milized hundreds to stand with them every step of the way. i just want to thank you, john, today, we are marking an for your unbelievable advocacy historic milestone and the most and your heart of gold. productive years in the history -- and your heart of gold. of congress. john feal. in no small part because of [applause] their leadership. we are very grateful for that. [applause] i want to thank joe lieberman. [applause]

and susan collins. >> wow, you are tall. [applause] he almost lifted me off of my feet. [laughter] twice in the last month i said whoever did not think this bill would pass, i said, "leave." and i think carl levin is still working. [laughter] i never wavered. but i want to add car levin. [applause] the result the loss to the men and women in the back of me. they held their shoulders to the on 9/11, they were tested. wheel of in the senate. of the last few weeks they were i'm proud of susan davis. tested. we never wavered. [applause] due to the leadership we have a bill. i had never met anybody more and a guy you might know, tenacious than me. barney frank. you had the tenacity of a [applause] leopard. i have never seen a body lay the haer like you do, chuck. let me tell you something, this

they kept up the fight in the man allayshe hammer. house. the fact i got to play a small i have got to a knowledge part in this big project is an patrick murphy -- [applause] honor. more importantly, we have gone eight christmases without federal assistance. we have gone eight years not knowing what the following year would bring to us on new year s. this christmas, while you may not get a check by friday morning, we will open a box that says, "the government will help you." help is on its way in 2011. that is bette than a christmas present this year. it is because of everybody's hard work that this christmas will be the best christmas i have ever known. thank you. [applause] >> hi also want to commend our military leadership. >> what isour new nickname?

and they don't ask, don't tell was a topic in my first meeting >> questions? with secretary gates, admiral >> what finally moved the mollen, in the joint chiefs. we talked about how to end this republicans on the bill? policy, we talked about how >> i think the people behind us focusing attention on those who success and of passing in implementing this change stood in the way. depended on working closely with the pentagon. that is what we did. >> senator, can you be re i am confident that history will specific about what happened remember well the courage and last night and this morning? vision of secretary gates. it was only on sundayhat there [applause] appeared there is a deal for $6.30 billion. >> here is what happened. of admiral mike mullen that we knew the clock was running spoke from the heart and said out. even though we would have been what he believed was right. here through christmas, easier [applause] we knewhan for kintorsten,

that the clock could run out. there was a simple strategy by those who wanted to stop this bill, which was let the clock run out. we made it clear we would stay and stay. we tried to let them know that this was more important than going home. second, the focus, as i said, of of general james cartwright, the the people behind us was vice chairman of the joint chiefs, a deputy secretary who amazing. the people who were standing in was here. the way began to be softening of the court. last night, harry reid, at our also, the authors of the request, went to enzi -- there pentagon's review. they were just outstanding with meticulous work. [applause] is a little story there will not tell. he went to enzi and said, " why and all of those that laid the groundwork for this transition. and finally, i want to express don't we sit down and work something out?" my gratitude to the men and

women in this room who have worn the uniform of the united states armed services. we sat down with senator enzi -- [applause] before that, i met with the advocates and asked what kind of compromise we could make? i thought they would yell at me and kick me out of my own office. they're very smart about this, i want to thank all of the patriots that are here today. knowing you cannot play and all of them who were forced to ideological game will no lives hang up their uniforms as a are at stake. result of don't ask, don't tell. kirsten and i conrred. but never stop fighting for this we told enzi that this was as country into rallied and marched and fought for change. far as we could go. we made a strong pitch to him on i want to thank everyone that why it was so important. stood with them in that fight. we td him how well the program because of these efforts, in the had gone in the past. coming days, we will begin the process laid out by this law. they had these misconceptions the policy remains in effect that would not be included in until secretary gates, admiral the bill. he said, "okay, but my staff and mollen, and i certify the

to supportreadiness leased to negotiate a few issues that. it is important for everyone to which you." remember that. our staffs what back to our they are committed to implementing the change swiftly and efficiently. offices. we will not be dragging our feet we're there until about 1:00 to get this done. [applause] a.m. and it appeared the deal was about to fall apart. we were discussing early this morning what we should do, what was the best way of getting everybody in the senate tuesday. we also had to worry about the hell's going home. with any change, there is -- about the house going home. apprehension. that is natural. i called up coburn and enzi and as commander in chief, i am certain that we can affect the transition in a way that only asked for one more shot. we discussed our strategy and strengthen our military readiness. then we went over to senat the people will look back and coburn's ofce. wonder why it was ever a source of controversy in the first place. harry asked if he thought it would help it became. i have every confidence in the we thought it would.

he came with us. professionalism and patriotism of our service members have just as they have grown stronger with we sell the center cobourg was each of the other changes. being reasonable and we knew we had gotten it done. -- we salt that senator coburn i know they will do so again. was being reasonable and we knew the secretary gates, admiral we had gotten it done. mollen, and a vast majority of all the changes that we may does the other's share this view. not betray a single worker that including the experience of got sick rushing to the towers. serving with her dedicated you could be sure we will be service members that were also gay, there is one special here fighting to extend this when the time expires. operations were fighter, this people will see what a good program it is. i do not think it will have the was one of my favorites. controversy that it had this it echoes the experience decades time. that is the basic story. earlier. we have a gay guy in the of it. do you want to add anything? >> this is something so many of he's big, he is mean, he kills us here have been working on so lots of bad guys. lo. volunteered that he was gay. senator schumer and i have bn working with our republican colleagues. and i think that sums up we knew we had the support from perfectly the situation. [applause] the republican colleagues. what this nal compromise

represents is the hard work we have done for weeks and months. some of the changes will be very good for the program. i think it is a better bill and it is a bill that is strong. i want to the fate of the men and women currently serving in because it is bipartisan, it our military. for a long time, your service really does show the american people that we are here to represent them. has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice. >> the fact that this was, you have been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and despite all the controversy, isolation. that it was enacted by voice vote, does that show that there all the while, you put your lives on the line for may have been another way to get citizenship that is not fully granted to you. to this? >> you know how the senate works. it is called unanimous consent. while today marks the end of a particular struggle that has why was there a unanimous vote? lasted almost 20 years, this is because we woed them one by one. more than two centuries in the we did not have to work one making. person or three people for a there will never be a full majority on e committee. accounting of the heroism we had to work every one of the demonstrated by americans. senators. it takes a lot of effort to do it. their service has been obscured

in history had a loss to present -- prejudices -- and lost to sometimes one person says yes and another person says no. present this is -- prejudices. we were only in session for one gay americans fought just as week after september 29. then we were off. hard and gave just as much. look at a busy the lame duck was. there were lots of important things on the calendar. there can be little doubt there were gay soldiers that fought i do not see anotheray of for american independence. doing this. the consecrated the ground in gettysburg. >> senators schumer played in amanda the trenches along the western front to storm the the hammer. that is what got it done. beaches of iwo jima. -- senator schumer layed the their names are etched into the walls of the memorials. hammer. their headstones got the grounds that is what got it done. at arlington. >> there is already a health care coverage for the mennd as the first-generation to serve women that wasllocated next year. this new program will take the openly in the armed forces, you will stand for all of those that came before you. old format of six different he will serve as role models.

programs and merge them into one. we now have one other% five of you will fulfil this responsibility with integrity accountability and wind third- and honor, just as you have party administrator. that allows for greater every other mission with which transparency and accountability. you have been charged. that will start up next year. we' have time to put that you need to look no further than together. that is one of the reasons the the service men and women in this room. bill passed. distinguished officers. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. merry christmas. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [capons copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] marines like one of the first americans in iraq. [applause]

leaders like captain jonathan hawkins had led the initial invasion following an ethnic riots and earning a bronze star in the valley. he was discharged only to receive e-mail and letters from his soldiers saying they had known he was gay all along. and thought that he was the best commander they ever had. there are -- there are a lot of stories like these. stories that only underscore the importance of enlisting the service hall all who are willing to fight for this country. that is why i hope that those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines that have been discharged under this discriminatory policy will reenlist when this is implemented. [applause]

that is why i say to all americans, gay or straight that was nothing more to defend this country, and your country needs you, we want you, it would be honored to welcome yogh into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known. [applause] some of you remember i visited afghanistan just a few weeks ago. while i was walking along, this big crowd of about 3000, a young woman in uniform was shaking my hand and other people or taking pictures. she pulled me into a hug and

whispered in my ear, but don't ask, don't tell the -- get don't ask, don't tell done. i said to her, i promise you i will. we are not a nation that says don't ask, don't tell. we are a nation that says we are many, we are one. we welcome the service of every patriot. we are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. those are the ideals that generations have fought for, those are the ideals that we all pulled today. it is my honor to sign this into law. [applause]

mike, why do you not give us a reprise of your argument of the defense budget? >> its a treat for me to have alice and all part of the panel. thank you for being here is so close to christmas. thank you, c-span, for being here. some may confuse this for "how the grinch stole part of the defense budget." we hope or i hope that the ultimate goal will be to shore up american and naonal security by contributed into deficit reduction. that is the basic spirit by which i understood this exercise, which was to investigate the proportion a cutting and the defense budget.

defense doing its fair share to reduce the deficit, inspired in part by the commissions that [applause] alice was working on and by other scholars who have argued for some form of strategic restraint or defense budget restraint. but the basic idea here, and i want to explain the philosophy first, was not too strongly advocate a 10% reduction in the peacetim defense budget, which is the number i picked, but weher c, t say why don't investigate whether the pentagon can do that kind of cut? what is the case for considering it? and then leave it to the broader policy committee and the reader to decide for him or herself as the kinds of reductions that might be necessary to achieve >> u.s.a.! that seem worth the risk. so that was spirit in which i am

u.s.a.! said the paper. -- i understood the paper. ♪ [applause] i think there are calculated gambles associated with the basic conce, but the question is, as admiral mullen pointed out, there are a huge risks associated with running $1 trillion deficit for our national security. therefore, can we afford to keep running those? if we're going to take a serious crack at reducing the deficit, is it realistic to think that you can start demanding that one big part of the budget is somehow protected. so the minute this someone says, defense is the top constitutional obligation of the federal government and should be protected regardless and we should make our deficit reduction out of other accounts, if we start a conversation in those terms, another constituency will come up and say, let's protect social security or college loans.

♪ or let's protect science research or infrastructure. you get the idea. pretty soon you have lost the shared sacrifice that i think is essential. that is the basic motivation. ♪ we will not reduce the deficit effectively and strengthen our long-term economy and the foundation for our military power if we do not establish a shared sacrifice. so 10% reduction in the real defense budget becomes my number. i am not going to go through detailed our arithmetic here to explain how i got to that number, because i think i would probably confuse you and confuse myself in the process of trying to keep a slide straight and talk to real or nominal dollars. th basic idea is we are not talking about the wars. the wars will be decided on their own terms. we are talking about the part of the defense budget th you could call the peacetime budget

or the base budget, sort of the regular, normal budget we would expect to continue on even as ♪ drawdown hopefully and the next three years. of that base budget, is a 10% ♪ reduction possible? 10% in the real or inflation- adjusted dustamount. that seems consistent to what the pentagon should contribute to the budget. if wwill look at the overall federal spending and tax accounts and try to establish a way to get close to fiscal balance over the next half a decade or so, with proportionate cuts in each area. now let me start talking about defense itself and explain what i think needs to be grappled with, whakinds of reductions might be necessary if you were to aspire to this 10% reduction in the inflation-adjusted

defense budget. i want to say -- i want to stay conceptual. part of michael and his paper was to try to -- part o my goal was to try to be a bridge between the defense comnity and the budget papers that i have sometimes been a part of writing myself, but the stronger strategic community or the policy debate so that everyone can begin to link ♪

by 10% to what it would mean for our place in the world. and whether the risks are worth it. 10% is a big cut. it's not trivial. it is not the sort of thing that will require russ to instantly stop our engagement anywhere, whether it is northeast asia, europe, or another key part of the world. so the goal here is to preserve most of our key strategic underpinnings and see if there are more economic ways to pursue. and with somewhat greater risk. there are two main ideas that i raise in the paper as sort of strategically meaningful concepts for ways to understand the implications of this sort of cut. there are a few specifics as well, in the spirit of what secretar gates has been trying to do with his business reforms within the department of defense. i have a few more ideas along most lines as well, but i want to emphasize the two big concepts that would account for most of the savings that i am trying to illustrate and discuss. and what of them is the size of our army and marine corps, and the other the basic strategy by which we modernize weaponry. ♪ the me say a couple of words

about what i think would be a somewhatore economical approach to each of those areas of american defense policy, and then passed back the baton to ♪ martin and alice and bob and you for further discussion. first, on the issue of ground forces, let me remind you first that we have increased the size of the ground forces by 15% over the course of this past decade. that is after having reduced the combined army and marine corps by about 35% once the cold war ended. we reduced in the 1990's and we built back up almost half as much again in the last 10 years. we are much smaller today than we were during the 1980's, but the combined strength of the active duty army and the active duty marine corps is nearly 100,000 personnel greater than ♪

it had been in the 1990's. i supported this increase for the engagements we have been involved with. there was no way to do the operation in iraq over a ♪ sustained basis, no way to do the operation in afghanistan without increasing these numbers. we already ask a great deal, probably too much, of our men and women in uniform during the peod when we were still building up and we probably resisted too long, and i am not support of a secretary resistance to increasing the army and marine corps, but we gradually built up further in the eighth period. now we are about 15% larger. i am suggesting that we may have to reverse that 15% increase once the war in afghanistan begins to wind down. so we go back to clinton-era levels on the army and marine

corps. that is one big stregic concept. it is a simple idea. and we have been there before. you can think to yourself the implications of this. if we were going to have another decade like the one we are now >> tomorrow, the president of finiing we would probably not want to go to a smaller army or marine corps. the alzheimer's foundation, eric if the mission in afghanistan was going to take a lot longer hall, and a look at the economic we would,000 troops forecasting. have to delay. "washington journal" begins live i'm not suggesting we should do this next year. these kinds of cuts should at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> it is a three-day holiday begin in the next presidential term, as t economy hopefully weekend on booktv. has begun to improve in the war the latest nonfiction titles and in afghanistan has substantially authors, including jimmy wound down i hope by then. it would be a mistake to do carter, rick atkinson, and on these things prematurely. that is one big idea. we can talk about specific afterwards, jane smiley on "the scenarios if you like in a man who changed the world." discussion, which ones would be too demanding for that smaller the man who invented the army and marine corps, but computer.

find a complete schedule on perhaps, almost undoable today. let me remind you very quickly in passing,hen i will move on booktv.org. to modernization and rafah, but in terms of scenarios we could you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public still handle our role inhe early months of anher korea affairs. continncy if that happened. "washington journal" connects you to policy makers and because longer-term operations in any future korea journalist. watched the house and our continued coverage. contingency, and here i am every week night, congressional eaking hypothetically and i am not predicting another korean hearings. war, but you have to think about also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend you can see our these scenarios, the possibility of another korean conflict would programs, the communicators, and presumably lead to the occupation of north korea. but the good news is that we prime minister's questions from have an ally, south korea, that the british house of commons. you can also watch our program would handle all lion's any time as c-span.org. share. our role would be in the it is all searchable at our c- opening 6-12 months. span digital library. that may prove a debatable assumption. we may want to discuss that. >> on wednesday the senate i think we will still have ample passed a bill to compensate 9-11 forces to create that scenario,

rescue workers at ground zero in even with a smaller army and marine corps. new york who became ill from that is just one example. alice and bob may raise other breathing toxic fumes and dust. the measure included $4.2 scenarios as well. let me move to modernization. billion to pay for health how do we try to modernize coverage. two chief sponsors along with weaponry with a more economical approach towards the basic idea several 9-11 sponsor's spokesman of buying new weapons and researching new weapons? in washington. this is 45 minutes. today, we are spending in the normal peacetime budget, about [applause] $100 billion on procurement, and another $80 billion on research. then we spend several tens of billions more and what used to be called a supplemental budget, intoh habeen folded >> usa, usa, usa! the regular budget prepa. i think there is a possibility of being able to reduce that by [applause] reduced war expenditures and then by another 10%r so. it would be hard to do more than

10%. if you take the following three ideass guideposts, i think you might be able to accomplish this. i will mention them briefly. one is a systems where there is redundancy in the way we are modernizing, because we are >>, maine. building several different things, accomplishing the same goal. a good example would be tactical -- come on in. aircraft modernization, where we you got it. are building a super hornet for the navy, planning to spill -- to build three different kinds of airplanes for the navy and marine corps, completing the purchase of the f-22 and >> down in front. >> christmas is here. modernizing munitions that are capable of far more precise attacks that have never been poible. >> listen up. the full range of modernization is excessive. >> this is a day of celebration. it does not mean that any one of them is wasteful. the good guys won. [applause] i am not trying to c

this is a day of celebration. ritique, but we take a gamble the good guys won. but what is the healthiest way have been so impressed with to build a strong defense. the legislative efforts of the new york delegation, ledy schumer and gillibrand, but also a second guidepost would be the house members. programs that were way over everyone worked hard on ts issue. costs or would underperform. it was an issue of fairness and this is common sense. i am not saying anything radical justice. here. the army has adopted some of its philosophy in recent years with you cannot take out of your some help from the office of mind at the hours of 9/11 when the secretary of defense and these brave men and women canceled its future combat system. rushed into those burning buildings, smoke pouring out of the next generation vehicle them. system that was probably not doing very well in performance and when the smoke stopped, the terms or financial terms, and it debris was still there. the debris was cleared. was the sort of thing we need to be ae to scrutinize and people rushed in to fight the potentially canceled. that is a very important area as fires, bring people out, and well. and a third and more difficult clean the debris. those are the ones we can never area is military missions that, while perhaps still within the forget what they did. every american remembers the realm of the feasible, seem less

likely than they have been fear, anger, and sadness the the before. here a classic example might be in the days, weeks, and months marine corps anmphibious folling 9/11. we can all remember where we assault. were. i do this in full knowledge that i remember where i was. there might be marines of this ro. -- in this room. i do not want to suggest that we had a leadership member every week. forced entry operations are a i was the first one to get thing of the past, but we have there. capabilities up for carrying this out already, and two of we flipped on the television. the modernization efforts are we thought a pilot was off both to my mind dubious ways course. the meeting got started. senator daschle was leading the to further our capabilities. discussion. if it is a mission that may seem the door opened, people with him to be beyond the heyday of its likely application, this may be out, he came back in and said, also an area of modernization that we are willing to run more "we have to get out of fear." risks. not because the existing we could see the pentagon burning. programs are wasteful, but because we have to introduce a we also remember the pride we spirit of trading off short- felt as we learned of the stories of thousands of first term, calculated gambles about responders who rushed into how we can make do with less to

burning buildings, facing shore up our longer-term economic foundation and national injury and, in many instances, power for future decades. martin? >> thank you. certain death to save people they had never met and never alice, put this in a budget seen. we also barred about the context for us. emergency personnel -- heard how important is it to actually about the emergency personnel. reduce defense expenditure? >> i think my role is to say as those brave personnel were not just from new york. most of them were. well as i can, why are we having emergency personnel, this conversation at all? firefighters who came from and i think it is very, very nevada. they came from all over t country. important that we have it. patriots from all over america michael has written a very answered the call. when america needed these men thoughtful and interesting paper, which i think will help and women following the terrorist attac of 9/11, they as people think about what might did not waver. you do in defense, but why they did their jobs. because of the fumes they and should you do anything at all is held that day and the weeks and the first question? months that followed, they are frankly, i think admiral mullen paying the price for a courage is right. at is difficult to describe and, sadly, some of them have he is not the only person saying this. already paid the ultimate the greatest national security sacrifice. threat we face is an economic i cannot say enough about

centers schumer andhe new catastrophe, and i do not say catastrophe lightly. senator from new york. i believe that we are now facing the possibility, the real what a team. [applause] possibility of an economic catastrophe, all real meltdow in the u.s. economy. now, with the discussion of the always remember, in the state of defee budget and how much is enough and national-security has new jersey -- thank you very always started with a throwaway paragraph that said, the most much. important thing for national security is to have a strong look, resilient, a owing economy. but then we moved on, because we we did not get everything that we wand. thought we had that, that we could take for granted. we did not need to worry about but always remember, legislation it. is the art of compromise. so the next question was, how much should we snd for this is $4.30 billion better defense? than nothing. but i would submit that that is this is a great victory for the no longer true. american people, the people in now, we worried that as michael new york, new jersey, and the points out, the somewhat in the rest of the country.

we said that we would never 1980's about the future of the forget and today's action american economy. ensures that these heroes are but we thought we fixed it. never forgotten. we got the budget deficit into a just as they help us recover surplus. i am very proud of that, because from 9/11, we will stand by them i served as budget director. and help them recover from and we got the economy growing distress, illness, and the maladies that resulted from again. but what we did not fix was our their heroism. national saving rate. [applause] we did not fix the fact that we as an economy were living way beyond our means. and now we are facing a very new and different situation. >> this is t date we have all i think it is important to understand that. that thing that is bothersome been working towards am waiting and worrisome is not the current for. our christmas miracle has arrived. [applause] level of the deficit, although democrats and republicans came that is high, but it is related together to make sure that we to the recession and the could fulfill our undeniable moral obligation to the first financial meltdown, which we never should have said. that was db policy, but we are here. we have to get out of it. respondersnd all of the survivors at ground zero. but what is really scary is what the firefighters here, the

police officers here, everyone happens to the projections of involved in the recovery -- the federal deficit and rising thank you. it was your work, heroism, and debt as you look beyond the recession, as the economy dedication that made the difference. we enjoyed coming here week after week to tell sators and recovers. we are facing a budget congress members abouthat you went through and your deficit that does not go down. dedication. there are so many people to it keeps going up, and a debt thank. i love to start with my that rises off the charts. colleagues. my senior senator, chuck and that is driven by the schumer. chat is an unbelievable leader demographics, the aging population, and more and an extraordinary public servant. he put his heart and soul into importantly, by our taste for expensive medical care, which we have. this. the is an extraordinary closer. we have to recognize that we he was here until the last hour have it and we needed. last night making every effort possible to do what needed to be and the combination in the federal budget drives spending done. i can tell you with eat up faster than revenue can honesty that he is an extraordinary man who put all of possibly go. new york first. thank you, chuck. and we are borrowing back, i [applause] believe half of it from the rest of the world. i >> want to thank our majority people say, the japanese, they leader. harry reid is not only someone have a hired jett -- debt to gdp

ratio. but they owe themselves. who leads by example, but leads from what he believes in. we owe it in large part to the his core values are at the heart rest of the world. of a man who does unbelievable if you think about competition thgs for other people. going forward in in the world he has led every step of the way. the has never faltered. he has never wavered. with the chinese, i would he has never forgotten our 9/1 submit that the first thing that heroes. thank you, perry. [applause] we need is a strong, growing, i want to thank senators and resilient american economy. mendez and gothenburg for new the second thing we need is a jersey. they had been there every step not to be dependent our man o r n them for selling our debt. of the way. thank you for your advocacy and commitments. thank you so much. and way down the list is a strong military. thank you, frank. so that is just trying to explain what averdmiral mullens i want to turn to my house colleague who has been working on this for nine years. put more succinctly. the work that carolyn maloney, we have to worry that the rising peter keane, anthony wiener -- de is unsustainable. we cannot borrow that much.

we will get to point, and it have been extraordinary. they took this bill every step could come quite quickly, the of the way in the house. europeans have been surprised by how quickly it com, when we they had 21 hearings. simply can't market our debt, they did the hard work of getting it through the house at a time when it absolutely had to be done. it was their dedication, except at astronomical interest rates. we have a spike in interest perseverance, and conviction that got it to the senate. rates, a crash and the dollar, thank you for everything you and we are into a deep and did. he brought the bill this for -- prolonged recession that will affect us f a generation. this far and allow us to do everything else. thank you. [applause] now, what does the defense last but certainly not least, i want to thank my republican budget have to do with this it? colleagues. that is the next serious if we learned anything from this question. these projections are not caused last election, it was that the by rising defense spending. american people wanted us to get things done. they ask us to come to by assumption, everybody is washington, work hard, and work together. making these projections, the enzin tell you that senator n war is winding down, and the defense dget goes up at some rate, maybe at the rate of gdp growth o maybe inflation, but and senator kohlberg came to

it is not what is driving the help. future spending. the chili made a difference. so why are we talking about the i wa to thank them for -- they fans? well, i think we are talking about it because we have to do everything we possibly can, and truly make a difference. of what to thank them for all we cannot do it all on the they had done. [applause] health entitlement side, because a lot to close with a reminder of what this is all about. we are aging and we do like to have medical care ev if we do on 9/11, our country was it more efficiently. attacked by terrorists. so we have to look at spending certain men and women, the the rest of our budget more strongest, the greatest among effectively on the domestic best, raced up those towers while everybody was coming down. side and the defense side, and they were the ones to white raising more revenue. now, that sounds like shared perch to look for survivors and then to find it remains -- who sacrifice, but i do not think shared sacrifice is e way to think about it i think it is, we went first to look for survivors and then to find are in a bad situation with respect to our public debt. how we use our resources more remains. effectively, and let's come back they were there because they were answering the call to duty. to the defense budget. i want to thank them. now, you serve on these i want to thank them for their commissions and you hear an awful lot about waste in rseverance, their dedication, certainly is there's

their love of country, and for standing behind all america when we needed them. quite a bit, and that's a this is our small effort to stand behind them when they need question of nomenclature. us must -- when they need us mike is much more polite most. god bless them. [applause] when he talks about the ospry. a lot like to introduce our senior senator. none of this would have been he does not say it is wasteful. possible without him. he just said we do not need it he has an extraordinary way of anymore and it does not work. bringing people together, moving but you can have lots of legislation fward, and getting conversations about that. the american people's business in the end, you have to come done. back to where mike came -- do senator schumer. [applause] we need such a large force? >> thank you, kingston. that relates to the question of there is one person you did not stairs -- shared sacrifice, because much of the public does thank -- yourself. [applause] not believe that we need to go in and take over other people's she did an amazing job. countries becae we do not do she never gave up in the it very well and it is awfully hard to get out. darkest of days and was and so if you are going to look indomitable. some of the senators said, " at how we use our resourc better on the domestic side, you

are going to have to convince a we'll stop her from bothering me?" lot of people that you are also i said, "no." looking at, do we need to spend so much on the defense side? what a great victory for a new >> thank you, alice. legislature. bob, let's put it in historical is that not fabulous? [applause] for someone this new to do so ntext. larry summers, i think, said much so soon is utterly amazing. recently, how long can the when other group that was not thank -- that is the people behind us. greatest power in the world i think we will all agree that remain the greatest power in the we were the players who moved world while being the greatest borrower in the worldd? deep pieces on the chess table, ? but they were the ones who stood and there is an inherent tension behind us to hold up that table. the, it seems to me, between without up -- without them there would not be as manyains. the ed to solve the problem that mike and alice they never gave up. their love of coury and their portrayed, and on the other hand fellow first responders was the need to stay strong to unlimited. protect our interests abroad. how you reconcile those? the mettle of them is amazing. >> first of all, let me say that i appreciate the spirit by which

we sat in a room and told them we approach the problem. we might have to compromise. ani also appreciate alice i was sure they would yell a rivlin. scream. it is easy to say, let's cut the john feal showed the mettle of a defense budget i not think one of you are saying that isn easy decision. i worry sometimes that we are man. like, it is like we have a gas- guzzling car with a huge gas- john, you are amazing. [applause] guzzling engine and we are looking for ways to reduce the guzzling, and one of the things everybody else who was here. we are going to remove is the today is anmazing day. front bumper and the air bags. it is a great day, of course, you might say that would be a shared sacrifice along with for those who are built. reducing the power of the engine, but you might ask if now at least we know they will be taken care of. that was the rht way to go it is a great day for new york. about it. there is a little bit of a it is a great day for new danger of talking about our jersey. we were the ones hit. budget deficit as a national security problem if it means that the way that we have to deal with it is to reduce our america rose to the occasion. most of all, beyond any of the national security. and that is the problem that i guess i am here to try to azing individual stories that bring tears to our eyesthis is analyze. by the way, i take very seriously the budget deficit,

a great day for america. [applause] but as alice says, it is not when you doubt this great primarily a defense budget country of ours -- and believe problem. it is many other things. the question is, what is the risk we are going to take? me, we are not perfect -- i think you do need to put in remember days like today where some historical context and ask, what is the character of our americans, n democrats, not nation in terms of our behavior republicans, not new yorkers, in the world? what is the character of the international situation and rose to the occasion. where are we going? america almost never lets you and then we need to make a kind down at the end of the day. of cost evaluation as to america it did not let us down whether the savings that you today. might get it in national she smiled brightly. security budgets might actuall the statue of liberty must have lead to a more expensive a grant from ear to ear, not situation because of the just f new york, but for contingencies you are not abl to deal with. america. let me try to go through those. this is an amazing day. you know, i do kno the we nearly gave up last night. was in my office. american people, the majority i want to thank someone else we say they do not wt to get in left out of banking -- our the business of invading other countries and using our force staffs, abroad in various contingencies, .

but i have to say that we as a people have a short-term memory staff, harry's staff, disorder, because even though and my staff. the american people do not -- say they do not want to do that, it is astonishing how frequently they do it. i had a bad night last night. i think when we talk about, of i can usually sleep through anything. course nobody wants to be sending troops of around the when we woke up this morning and world willy-nilly, but if you the into coburn's all this, look a little bit at recent history, it is quite remarkable how often we do in fact d that. first word he said was, "we are to make a quick look through real close appear "you could tell by his body language and recent history, we intervened in grenada, panama, iraq, somalia, the tone of his voice that they wanted to get this done. it only took about one hour. here we are. haiti, bosnia, kosovo, those people who rushed to help us and who thought they were afghanistan and iraq. being abandoned are now in the so we have now gone a record bosom of america. this is a proud day. number of years without an additional intervention. a proud day for everyone who has it probably has something to do with the number of troops we

been involved in this effort and have. and i recall, aer each one of for everyone who bears the a."le "citizen of the u.s. thosenterventions, there was a great cry, we will not do that again. this is abnormal. only people with a wonderful >> i am going to excuse myself. memory can think that intervening every two years over we have another vote. 20 years is now all of a sudden an abnormal activity and we will >> thank you. [applause] go back to not doing that anymore. that may be true, but i would say if you were looki from a our two colleagues from new distance at the united states, jersey were with us shoulr-to- you would look at that record and say, i am not so sure they shoulder. when you are in a fight that will never intervene again. so i would be careful about sometimes seem lonely, to help people buy your side is amazing. they were unclenching in their assuming that is what the american people want. and i would especially say that dedication, devotion, effort, given that there are some and ideas. obvious, possible contingencies it is my pleasure to introduce looming ahead of us, which are senator frank lautenberg and senator bob menendez. by no means far-fetched and [applause] which mike mentioned one. >> like everyone of you, this is any of which that we might wind doing. north korea is one.

a proud day for america. iran is another, even if the we are all emotional, but very president, as i assume he does satisfied that we have come to not get into a military the end that we have. confrontation, iran may suck us we must, again, tip our hats and into a military confrontation. the consequence of sanctions may be that iran may lash out and do give credit where crediis due. something, or israel may do something that drives us into kristin gillibrand -- she worked it, whether we want to be in it more arduously banned many old- or not. this is what our military timers. planners have spent years of she took a leadership position worrying about of two those on this. things happening at the same time. we have been fighting for years is not a question of whether we to try to get some justice. could do one or the other. the question has always been, chuck schumer, artists supporter would you do one if you knew the other might have been and he of this moment, bodman mendez -- would be completely incapable of dealing with it? all of us felt this personally that is why we had a two, or because our friends and tried to havehat two major neighbors were some of the contingency force. might we have to do something in peopleho died that day. somalia or yemen, or place i

a young man i knew very well have not thought of yet? that would also be true. perished that day -- 28-years i think we need to be cautious old. before saying, we will take a the brother of the fellow where vacation from that stuff. neither our history or the international conditions suggest they lost 700 people perished that is a good bet right now. that day. we found a group of believers to that addresses the question of the size of ground forces. fight for your help and your because we fought two wars lives. badly because we "a" did we won over what to disbelievers, skeptics, and cold-hearted opponents. not have, and did not want to they denied the truth about our put enough forces into iraq or honor and duty t protect those afghanistan that might have who fought to protect all of us. actually brought those some said it was wasteful conflicts to a quicker resolution and theless- spending. expensive in the long run. this is another one of those with they dared stand in front of others and say, ", sorry, cases where you say, you might want a larger force but that will be caper than a war that this is wasteful spending." drags on inconclusively for five even the governor of new jersey years. you might want to pursu the was skeptical about it. powell doctrine and send in he thought it might be fiscally

enough forces to cauterize the irresponsible. situatio 700 people from my state were that might be cheaper. killed on september 11. on the prospects of a 80 to 100 are being monitored coalition helping us, so we do for toxic chemicals. not need as large a force. if anythingur traditional they believed it was their duty to spend hours surrounded by coalition partnersre toxic materials. decreasing their own military capacity. europe is becoming a shadow of what it once was and what it they were there many, many hours. once was was a shadow. going tooion that we are have significant support. everyone of the persons who are maybe, eventually, we n hope that india will pick up some of the slack in east asia. sick now, every one of the persons who died -- this is a jan has a large force. victory for anyone who wants to if they are willing to use it, hurt america. is often a question. this is one of the great battles this country has ever seen. i say great in terms of ok. proportion. the battle of the bulge -- was the second, and fortuon force aa serving in belgium at that time.

characteristic is we are back to almost 90,000 american soldiers were dead, wounded, or missing. great power competition. and the most significant 90,000 people are now sick or competition is china. it is a cliche to say that china being monitored as a result of is the rising power, but it is a this vicious attack on our cotry. like the men or women affected, rising military power. it is not going away of new, the victims of 9/11 are our war peaceful development. when did. we are finally fulfilling our it is challenging not only our moral mandate to make sure they own position in east asia but receive the care they deserve. it is sad that it took us this the independent capacities of allies of ours. i would say that avoiding a long, but we fought until we finally fulfilled our dream, conflict with china -- and if particularly those who were part you look through history, the of the people who served in that odds of a conflict are higher area, part of the families who than the odds of not having a lived in that area. conflict in this situation. i urge my colleagues in the the number of times that rising powers have entered into the house, do not delay. existing international system ensure that the heroes of 9/11 without a war are few and far between. know that their sacrifices will and the way to avoid this war is be honored. going to require, and we are not stay strong and restore our going to be able to get away faith in america. om this, some kind of arms

race with china. [applause] china is going to keep building and improving its capabilities, and they will accelerate that, in my view. we will be very lucky if they do not. and we are going to have to keep up. if you look at the administration's own approach to east asia it is all about reassuring allies that we are there. you cannot reassure allies you are there if your own capacity >> a grateful nation is dwindling. i know mike is not calling for a reduction in our forces in east asia, but i think the one thing that is missing from the paper others who responded on that is the realization that those fateful dayey responded on thatl expenditures will have to increase because we are in an day. arms race out there. that is something that i think will make it difficult for us. at the broadest level, the question we have to ask ourselves is, what does the today the nation honors those liberal world order that we support cost? how much is it worth to us? individuals in a meaningful way. i want to salute my two i would argue that the great

colleagues from new york. almost miraculously prosperity of the 40 years after the end of kirsten gillibrand sits next to me on the floor of the united states senate. if she grabs me one more time -- world war ii and on was a very much a product of the liberal world order that american power was preeminent in supporting. she was incredibly driven. if we are talking about a reduction of america's capacity to support that liberal world if you have to be in a order, and by the way, that may legiative or other battle, you be inevitable in a matter what cannot have a more skillful, we do, it would be hastened by are weakening, by our ceding fall whole intellect at work than chuck schumer. these two individuals made an power to countries like china butaybe russia. enormous -- did an enormous job. there will be a cost, and i want to remember the person for whom this bill is made. possibly a direct financial cost to our inability to make sure he was a new york city police that the lines of communication officer. he spent 450 hours at the world are always open. that is one of the great public trade center site. goods that we provide and he felt it was his duty. benefit from. so that it seems to me also has when he drove away that day, he to be brought into the calculation. you know, it is extremely

told his wife and kids and he needed to respond. his only protection was a simple unfortunate that we happen to paper mask. have an economic crisis at a he did not think about himself time when the international nor did he think about the scene is getting more crisis prone. consequences for his family. that is a bad break. he thought about his duty, his honor, and his country. it is the kind of bad break we had in the 1930's when we had, we lost him two years ago, but at the same time, and even related by the way, a great for all of those who are still alive we honor them today by the depression and an increasingly passage of this bill. perilous international situation. things are not as dire now as that passage says that we are they were in the 1930's but, truly a grateful nation. thank you very much. yes, you can have a double bed [applause] by over the decade. that is where we are. -- a double bad biorhythm >> i want to also recognize two people who cannot be here, but deserve much gratitude. over a decade and that is wehre mayor bloomberg has been an we are. unbelievable advocate and has worked hard to support this the biggest mistake that we bill. could make is to weaken ourselves in the process. secretary clinton was here today saving $60 billion per year so on the senate floor. i said this was a double-rainbow

that the defense budget can make because she was the first one to its fair share of the sacrifice is too risky and not start this work in the senate. necessary. their hard work really made a difference. i would now like to introduce -- we do have to solve our budget crisis, but we would be taking grave risks if we try to solve the by cutting the defense budget. >> ok. good. at least we have a debate. thank you. they are not here? i will go straight on. like to respond to boand abbas. [laughter] lice. if they are -- if there are savings to be made, they need to be done in terms of achieving we will move on to our neck more efficiencies. speaker. i just want to say one thing anotr contexts about my house colleagues. the bill they put together was so good. it literally work -- we were in which we are already spending way beyond defense expenditures literally worked so hard to get it right in the first and cents. it was an excellent bill. of other countries combined. it is their dedication that we account for 45% of the world

allow us to move here in the military expenditure. senate. i would like to add to do is to is bob right that this is too you the president of the afl risky? and where we define the cio. efficiencies? >> i am not saying only >> this is a very special and efficiencies. i said the opposite of that. emotional day for all ofs. i think efficiencies are very important. if you are going to discuss the defense budget as much as mike it is hard to grasp the is proposing you do need to importance of thi or the fact think about the force structure, that it actually has been done. and we should. >> let me start with bob and see it has taken a long time and we what i can say in response. have fought hard. i want to thank both senators for doing it. frankly, i agree with everything except his last three sentences. as we got to the end, -- there and so i think that's part of why, as i say in the paper, i is a certain title that goes to would only support the cuts members of the house. that is to be called a here, i would only consider supporting the cs i lay out if "legislator." it is part of a serious national effort of deficit reduction we do not hear that lot. across the board, because my but the new york delegation is goal really is, even thoh we see the risk differently, my made up of legislate toleranors. goal is to shore up long-term national power. if there is no chance of

they are therefore the common accomplishing that, then i would agree with bob that the $50 good and are willing to step out and do things when others say billion you might be able to cut from the defense budget is not they cannot be done. worth the risk. to make the right compromises again, i want to emphatically state that while i do think and bring people into it. there is waste, you have to cut i am proud of the work that was done this year, particularly in muscle not fat in order to get this level of reduction, and you the last two or three weeks. have to take real risks. i would emphatically make that argument. i would support serious consideration of this kind of a we all had the interest of all plan in the context of other major changes to our federal budget, such as income tax reform that bringin greater in mind. i am very grateful. net revenue, whether it is i want to thank someone directly higher rates or preferably to had a veryig piece in doi smaller and fewer loopholes, such as reform to social this, inspired me to do this in security that for most workers ways i did not think i could, to increaseshe a and delores focus in ways i did not make i the adjustment rate of cost of living-- and lowers the could -- the woman in the green adjustment rate of the cost dress. stand up. [appuse] living. i was strk a few weeks ago giving a talk at the university of las vegas, and i asked the students in the room how many of them expected to get social

security when they retired, and three of them raised their hand. the notion that we should i want to thank jim today does coider social security as a sacred cow, that does not hold technical information in ways water. the younger generation is ny of us could not understand. i want to thank all of the already recognized the dilemma. they recognize the need for reform. unions and who got involved -- the firefighters, all of the but that kind of spirit of shared sacrifice will only be participants that spent time and established if we ask a -- every major part of the budget to never gave up. contribute. at the end of the day, i fundamentally disagree with bob. one last thing on th house -- i do not think you can make the way that it came from the major progress on deficit reduction unless everybody has house, the spirit and the to do something. emotion that both of you brought while i always like to ellis for to this, i am i will tell you -- guidance on fiscal matters, i do think that we need to up the spirit of sacfice. -- i would tell you why i am looking at you. you brought passion. and the national security area, we should never be afraid of they are risky. hiding our passion. instant loans, they might be

hn feal was always there. less generous. and so what it dowthe road -- they might loans, it is an amazing exercise in how be less generous. america works, how good things let me just talk briefly about iran, because i take this are done, and why it is that country and this problem very this is without probability the seriously, just like bob and martin does, and i am sure most best country to live. of you do as well. thank you ball. what i would say is the following. -- thank you, all. i tried to test various scenarios against the 15% smaller ground force. >> next i would like to welcome and most of, all the scenarios i the president of the uniformed can think of, that 15% reduction firefighters association. is not crucial for affecting our basic capability. do you want to speak, bill? if we do airstrikes against come on up. iran's nuclear facility, which i >> i want to thank our senators who did a great job. do not support but i recognize i also want to thank our are not out of that, question congressional delegation. without them we would not have certainly, the size of our gotten this far. ground force will not be relevant. firefighters will always respond if we do e a naval when they are needed. it is nice to know we have our

blockade, to prevent them from government standing behind us. we appreciate that. shipping out oil or importing gasoline, then the size of our navy is much more important. i am generally in support of protecting those of the naval force structure, not every single element, but 90%. i am not looking to make major cuts, partly because i take this scenario seriously. if we are looking to deal with the possibility, however unlikely, of an iranian escalation up to and including an attack on an american city by iranian-trained terrorists that requires us in response to at least raise the specter of an invasion to overthrow the iranian regime, and i am talking pretty unlikely scenarios but ones that i would agree with hawks need to be kept in mind, we have the capability to overthrow the iranian regime. we do not have the capability to occupy their country, but we do not have that even wit today's

army and marine corps. we would have thave an army that would probably be twice their current size to do an occupation of iran with a 75 million population correctly over period of years. when i test my smaller force structure against these scenarios, i would argue that either we are still going to have enough or there is no different from what we have today. and i would accept implicitly one of the things i believe bob is arguing. but i would except that you do have to do these kinds of tests. you do have to think hard. and i'm happy to do this in regard to china and i want if people want to have that conversation in the next 45 minutes. i think you need to ask, do we have a strong deterrent for these scenarios that matter? recognizing that you have to stretch your imagination because there may be a scenario you have not thought of that winds up being important. that is one more challenge. >> the bowles-simpson

recommendations -- alice was involved -- suggested there was $100 billion in possible defense cuts. the big ticket items that they identified, the biggest of all was to reduce procurement by 15%. that would produce a $20 billion annual savings. i do not know whether you have looked at that and what that would mean as opposed to the kinds of more surgical strikes at thehairman you are talking out reduce overseas bases by 1/3, $50 billion. bob, you might also address the question of whether we really need all of those force

deployments in europe. i could see the argument for korea an japan given exactly what he said, but can we save significant money by drawing driving europe wihtouthout up risk to hide? then there was $9.2 billion in freezing combat military pay at 2011 levels for three years, non-combat military paper. y. let's look at those three specific issues -- reducing overseas bases, cutting procurements in a more draconian way, and freezing noncombat military pay. alice, would you like to elaborate? >> those were illustratio. both the bowles-simpson group and the other group that i

cochaired with the senator demanded she recommended freezes in defense spendinis at a hard dollar level. then put together a list of things that illustrated how he might get there. in both cases, the illustrations -- in domenici, there were more heavy on force structure. they included a lot of the same things. in some of the non-military things like retirement and non- combat pay, a particularly the health system and tricare, but the acquisition, i think, i do not know where 15% came from, but in the bowles-simpson

commission there was a lot of focus on waste in the procurement process. political interference and weapons systems that the military has sai time and time again they do not want and congress puts back because they're made in everybody's congressional district. and so that is how the acquisition number came in there. >> we will come back to the politics of this in the third round, because that becomes important. >> i'll mention a couple. one is there is one method -- methodological difference occur. if you are talking about established bases in a major allied countries, that is incorrect. the only place where you can

save that kind of money to overseas base cuts is in the war zones because do not have allies who are paying the lion's share of our local costs. in germany and japan and britain we do. . or we are so established that the facilities are not that much more expensive than what w have at home. the way you get the savings is if you cut those forces out of the force structure. if the army troops that are brought home from germany are brought home and demobilize, then you can save that kind of money. the presence we have in germany, britain, japan, korea, you do not have tse kinds of costs associated above and beyond what it would cost to have the same units in the force structure here in the united states. 10% versus a 50% -- versus 15% reduction, i believe that is within the realm of

debate. it is worth remembering that 10% will be pretty hard. i do not disagree at all with alice. once in awhile, congress has thought of good weapons systems that the military may have made a mistake about. let's remember, the military ultimately is the secretary of defense, and that person is infallible,. it there have been other -- there have been other secretaries of dense that did not want to buy things. lo and behold the medium weight truck that he wanted bill performed very well in operation desert storm and provided the capability we needed. most discussions of all right waste in the defense budget are overstated. i do not want to say 15% reduction in per term it is impossible, but i think 10% is already very hard.

my paper does consider asking military personnel to pay a little more what you might call normal share of health-insurance costs, because the tricare program is a generous and for good reason. we want to take care of our men and women in uniform and their falies. this proposal makes an exception for combat pay and makes no reductions in health care costs for those who are hurt,but nonetheless, i think if we are going to ask military personnel to pay a higher share of their health-insurance costs, i would prefer to continue to give them at least a rate of inflation increase in their pay or better. >> bob, do you want to talk about base closings abroad? >> mike made the key point. having troops overseas or having them at home is not a big savings one way or the other. you know, i was not privy to how

all these things came about, but i thought the commission said two things. one was that the united states has to rethink its role. i think the discussion of cutting bases by 1divided bythere was more about that than about savings -- cutting basese was more about that than about savings. we are getting a little tangled in this debate. i think that it might be, not here, but maybe that is the debate we should be having. i start with a seof assumptions about the wall we have in the world. there is another way of looking at the united states -- i start with a set of assumptions about the role we have in the world. you're talking about a substantial retraction of our role. if we all agree on our r there is not enough savings in the defense budget to spend

a lot of time on it. it is not that we cannot find it weapons program that is stupid. many are wasteful. increase, ability is and now they are creating ships that can go 1500 nautical miles, and will cause all kinds of problems for us to operate in that space. it will require innovation and duplications, and you know better than i do what it may require, but it may require not that we shrink our naval capacities but that we increase our naval capacity. we will find areas where we need to increase capability. >> do you want to respond? >> it's a fair point. i will say one small thing in

reply, but i will not commit rebutts this concern. we are spending $9 billion each year on missile defense, which is 50% more than ronald reagan spent. even with the reductions that the obama administration has carried out, some of the concerns that have been raised have already been internalized and the way we are thinking about defense resource allocation. do you thi it will be adequate? no. i think offensive missiles have an innate advantage over defense missiles. therefore, once the reductions are made that i am laying out, i think we are going to need to go on a path of being able to increase defense funding, not to immediately on to the reductions but to alw for sustained, lo-term, modest growth. that would be one more part of my plan that i think is important. >> i think the scariest thing that bob has said is that we will inevitably get into a long

run arms race with china. i think we' better think how not to have ey long run arms race with china, because we are not talking about the soviet union. we are talking about a country that is very likely going to be much stronger in the future economically and we are, and it has a lot more people, and if we get into a full scale arms race with the chinese, it does not d the way the soviet one did it comup with us bankrupting them because they could not afford it. i'm afraid it and thends that we lose. bankrupting us. >> l's talk about the politics before we go to the audience for questions. we have probably tnessed today's a surprising act of bipartisanship in terms of senate ratifying by more than 2/3 vote the new start treaty.

indeed, when one looks at national-security issues, there seems to be a surprising degree of bipartisanship when you compare it with the extreme partisanship involved on domesticssues. so would there be political support for the kinds of reductions that mike is talking about. ? >> it's a good question. certainly one hears a lot out there about the need to put the defense budget out there, and that has been the plight of some of the new republican voices. on the other hand, tre is probably a bipartisan consensus and not to do that. and probably an agreement between the administration and the majorities in congress and

not to do that. and so will be interesting to see how that plays. it is worth noting that that incredible, wild man and profligate disefense spender bob gates, when asked about the cuts proposed of 10% said, it would be catastrophic. that is the word used. as long as you have a secretary of defense taking that position and you still have the group that passed -- you could say that the coalition that passed start is what i would call a kind of center-right caucus coalition, because y had to put forward missile defense, and modernization, which is another question we did not factor in. i think you are not going to have a coalition in congress that will substantially cut the defense budget. >> alice? >> i'm not so sure. i think we will not know for a

while how much the conversation has changed as a result of the fixation now, right fixation i think, on the dangers of looming debt. s-at i heard in the bowle simpson coalition was the bipartisanship that defense has to be part of cutting the budget. when you have a strong conservative like tom coburn and mike crapo and others joining with dick durbin to sign on to a proposal that you just read some have aelementals of, you new kind of conversation. >> democrats have to appear tough on defense in political

season. is it nceivabl that you have republicans who go along with your kind of proposal? >> a lot would say is, because i think alice and bob framed it well, the specifics matter. you need to ask, if defense is part of the plan is to do something like i have tried to outline, are those risks acceptable? are the ones we ould be willing to run or not? another example would be, can we keep the national security industrial base, the defense sector, healthy with a 10% at smaller budget? people have to wrestle with those issues and see the implications of these kinds of alternative plans. if they feel comfortable with them, then i think it is possible. maybe this is a naive thought, but i think the substance matters. people have to digest a bit of the detai not at the nitty itty defense planning level

but at a strategic level of what the implications are. that is why am glad we're having the opportunity to discuss this today. >> the triumph of rationalism. let's go to your questions, please. please wait for the microphone. identify yourself, and make sure there is a question mark at the end of your sentence. yes? >> thank you. hi. i appreciated mr. kagan's reference to the character of the american people as regards this issue, but i think it was not a corporate to say that that was contradicted by all of the many interventions, none of which i have forgotten, but none of those were preceded by any kind of consensus in their favor. yes, the american people always support the troops in harm's way and they want to see them succeed, but also, in many cases, we were misled. we were misled by the gulf of

tonkin, buy weapons of mass destruction. i think there is more support for a less interventionist, less occupation-invasion-oriented foreign policy than we are living on here. in general, i think a lot of the top of the suppose a third rail about social security, entitlements, and defense spending is more politicians expressing their addiction to conducting, being conductors of the gravy train than any real on willingness of the american people to actually face these budgetary and national-security reality's peies. is our foreign policy not is of one of the greater threat to our national security? >> thank you. [laughter] question. sure of the >> i think it's a good

question. it is, in part, the history of those often-failed interventions, or ones that gan with a assumption that did not turn out to bright that i think is givin people pause about whether we need to keep on doing it. >> well, i mean, we could enter into theories of psychoanalysis of the american people, if you want to, and how they are constantly being misled into wars. that does not change my theory about how democracy works in this country or any other country. you would still left to say that, if that is the case, the american people are endlessly capable of being misled by whatever evil forces are constantly misleading them, because there is no indication that they have after each successive misleading -- which you should include world war ii, which was also a conspiracy by

fdr to get us into a war, and all the other wars in american history which were all conspiracies, that never the less we keep being fooled. the reality is, this is what america does. i could imagine that america gets tired and does not want to do it. but it is precisely, to fight against this tendency to believe that this is not really to we are, and therefore, we should not prepare for the contingencies that we have been engaged in in the past. i am afraid, for better or worse, this really is who we are, and we need to recognize that, just as we need to recognize that americans want all the things they want and do not want to pay for them. these are all elements of what it is to be an american. i do not think we should kid ourselves that right now,

over here in the corner. >> picking up on what alice rivlin said about the strength of rising china, i have a question for bob kagan. the you think that given the fact both america and china out what to pervert -- want to preserve the oceans for trade and so forth and the fact that we both have islamic terrorism problems -- china has a moslem uprisings ever so often -- is there a possibility that we could be cooperating together on these world-wide problems? >> yes. there is a possibility. i hope that can turn help to be the case. what is interesting is if you

take a shot -- what is interesting is china's perception of these things. i do not know how much commonality we have, but setting that aside, the issue of the commons and how they are going to be protected and who will protect them, the chinese no longer want the united states to be operating in waterways they consider to be close to their territory. this happened over the past year. we have to decide, unfortunately, whether we wt to continue to insist on the right of passage to these inteational waters as secretary clinton said, or if we want to say to the chinese that they can take this over. that would have implications for japan, southeast asia, etc. that is why contrary to many

expectations all of these countries have been coming to the united states as china asserts these rights. china may, i think, being confronted succefully by the united states and its allies, decide to back off and move towards the cooperation you are talking about. from a historical perspective, if you look at the history, the odds are against that. it is not because i am looking for to this competition, it is just because of the odds are they will continue to demand that right and incree their capabilities so the next time they demand it, hillary clinton can go to hanoi and say, "no."

i would love to avoid it, but we have to take the up possibility seriously that we may not be able to avoid it because the chinese themselves do not want to avoid it. >> i like the last two questions as well as alice's answer. i was in japan last week. the japanese are talking about their concerns about cna's rise. the japanese, as you know, have reallocated their defense resources more towards their southern islands. i talked to a lot of people in japan and ask them how they felt about their long-term relationship with china. there was not a lot of optimism. there was also not a lot of mention of war. i am not interested in debating a 30% cut. i think 10% is in the realm of

law will allow us to keep a robust presence in the pacific. perhaps we caneallocate fewer forces to the atlantic. we probably have a larger presence in the mediterranean and the atlantic then we showed. we already been doing that. maybe we should do more. all would agree enough with bob to say that 10% is the vast amount -- is the maximum under the structure. >> i would like to quote the indian national security adviser. "it should not be beyond the bounds of statecraft for us to manage the rise of these potential great powers of."

>> i am en and turn. -- i am and intern. i am from germany. if you look at it, it is the same for the cost to run an army base in germany as it does in the united states. i do not understand why it is much more different? >> you raise an important concern. we have some americans who want to bring the forces back home, partly because they want the economic stimulus associated with the base code to the american crop economy -- go to

the american economy rather than the german economy. there is a broader economic argument thathey could stimulate our own economy. there is also the argument to try to consolidate more bases in one, two, or three places. that will allow army families to stay put for a longer time. the typical army life that we are familiar with from history is not as conducive to a spouse holding a job and keeping it for a long time. there are other reasons why secretary runs fell is looking to consolidate more forces -- secretary rumsfeld was looking to consolidate more forces.

japan helps us a great deal. what modest differences there are are partially mitigated by host-nation support. this is not a big deal for an established facilit in a major industrial country. >> i wanted to get you to react to something that is a little more short-term. congress has just passed the funding to 2010 levels until march 4. this affects the pentagon's budget. does it affect national security? specifically to ms. rivlin, republicans are talking about knocking $100 billion out of non security spending this year. does that make sense from an economic point of view? does it threaten the recovery? what is your take on this

energy? thank you. >> it is a terrible idea if it only goes to march 4. we should have had all of the budget, not just the defense association long before now. government by continuing resolution is that for everything. i have not examined the $100 billion that you referred to and what they are talking about. i cannot really give you an answer to that. it depends on what baseline you are talking about. >> the state with the question of the incoming progress -- incoming congress. the incoming crowd seems to have gotten elected on the basis of cutting the budget. does that apply -- i do not know

which of you has the desire -- to apply ito the defense budget or does the defense budget sacrifice? >> some do and some don't. during the campaign, what we heard most of the tea pty candidates, some of whom were elected, is that we have to get this deficit down. we have to protect medicare, social security, the defense budget, and we cannot raise taxes. i do not know what they are talking about. you cannot get there from here. [laughter] but mckeon has been very clear that they are not going to get savings out of the defense budget. he is not talking that way at all. i honestly doubt -- probably because some of the incoming budget cutter's positions are incoherent.

i really do not expect in this coming year -- and the argument that mckean is very powerful at the moment. we have two wars going on, he will say. there is the simplicity that they will not listen to any of the specifics we have been driving down on. when you have a defense secretary from the opposite party who does not want to cut any more -- >> the question is not where the new members stand. they have to figure that out. it is the shift in the senior republican leadership that would change the conversation in the next year or two. >> please stand up.

>> i am a washington lawyer. we have heard two risk describe -- military risk, which are very dramatic. alice rivlin told us about the economic risk. i wish alice would expand on what that risk is. how do you balance these risks? >> the economic risk, i think, is very serious. we are no longer talking about downturns, recessions, market disruption. we are talking about potential economic trajectory. come in the could form of a sovereign debt crisis

to use the term be used in europe. that has always been thought to be unthinkable. i think we have gotten to the int that unless we change course it could mean a serious a meltdown in the economy. when might that happen? nobody knows. it is happening in europe faster. it is happening to the.k. faster than they thought. they decided to do something really serious. i am afraid they are going to overreact. we are bigger. we are able to borrow in our own currency. we have to face the fact that we are not immune. >> china owns a lot of our debt.

are we vulnerable in that sense? >> china bought our debt for good reasons. they saw it as a good risk. we are buying their stuff. the question is, how long can this go on? they have to realize that this is unsustainable. they do not have to adopt our debt to make really big problems for us. that creates very serious problems. maybe not total market meltdown. they do not want us to go down. it is not in their interest to have a catastrophe in the u.s. economy? -- it is n in their kind -- it is not in their interest to have

a castrophe in the u.s. economy. >> alice talks about our serious economic risk. i am take this very seriously. i think it is worth remembering -- and this is not to disagree with her in any way -- our problems are fixable. i try to mention some of the strength in the paper. we still need -- we still do more research and development than anyone else in the world. we had the best universities in the world by any assessment system than any other part of the world. we have great innovatio in areas like aerospace and computers. if we make a course adjustment that is significant but not radical, we can preserve a lot of the strengths and stay powerful. it is the underlying bullishness. >> i totally agree with that.

>> i do not in any way question the nature of the risk that alice is talking about. i take them very seriously. my question is, do we want to compel that risk by reducing the military budget by $50 million? i would urge that we think about, even if you just want to talk about dollars, whether the underprepared this in military terms could wind up being more expensive for us. the problem with the defense budget and thinking about his military risk is we are the captive and potential victim o forces that are beyond our control. we can decide what we want to do about social security act and it is a finite situation. but people can do things out

there in the world that we have no control over. we have to prepare for that risk because it could be more expensive. those of you to remember 1948 to 1950, we had an $18 billion defense budget. everybody was madly looking around for a way to cut this thing. some were saying we needed to have a $50 billion budget. north korea invaded south korea, we are at war, the next thing you know we have a $50 billion defense budget. these can wind up driving up costs and we would be better off paying for them. >> we would be better off with a stronger economy. >> i strongly agree with you. i would say to cut social security entitlements before we

cut the defense budget. that is what i would say, but what do i know? >> has -- the economic downturn of fax political power. do we have to turn to a stronger military power in order to maintain our global influence? how does the adjustment of the u.s. military affect the rest of e world? >> i like the way you talk about this, but i am happto do it if you do not want to. [laughter] 1 dynamic i like and what i have seen in the international system, is it is clear we are still the most powerful country on earth. we see it now in east in asia where countries are coming to us and asking for help. sometimes we get a snack in the united states for being the country that was to assert ourselves.

the bush administration was tarred with this. there are some countries who want us to stay engaged. in our power ensues across the world, it makes them a little bit more nervous that we will go away. they get more enthusiastic about lobbying for our association. we see that also in the broader middle east. there is a dynamic that is very interesting where we have to be sought after by other countries a little bit more. frankly, in some ways it is beneficial to our interest to be the superpower that leads the coalition that wants us to be there instead of always having to diagnose and address the problem ourselves. >> thankou. it was a very stimulating and thought-provoking conversation. it is first of many we will have on this subject.

you have all made a great coribution to it. thank you very much for coming. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. i'm shuja nawaz, director. on behalf of the council i would like to welcome all of you to our final event for 2010. a very eventful year, particularly for the region that we cover, greater south asia, which includes geographic south asia, the gulf, a ron, afghanistan, and central asia. i am delighted that joining me here today are two experts on the region, a visiting scholar at the carnegie endowment in washington. he is advertised at carnegie as

an expert on afghanistan, but i would expand that to include pakistan because he is one of the few people that has actually traveled and knows well the border region between the two countries. his research is focused on security and political development in afghanistan and particularly the role of international security assistance as well as looking at what would constitute a viable government in kabul and also drying scenarios. a very appropriate person to have with us. previously he was a professor of political science in paris and at the institute of political studies. he has also served as the scientific coordinator at the french institute of an italian studies in turkey. he has various other academic attributes and backgrounds, which i won't get into at this point, but we are delighted that

he agreed to participate. we are also happy to welcome back to the south asia center mr. ikram sehgal who is a businessman and a columnist and former military officer from pakistan. he is now currently the chairman of a group called pathfinder g. he writes a regular column for one of the leading pakistan newspapers. we are delighted that he has joined us today to help shed light on what is happening. for those of you that were expecting a third member of our panel, as were we, i'm kristine was unable to come because of illness. we will miss her. i will see if i can do my best to stand in for her, but i'm sure that's not going to be adequate. i just want to us, again, began

with a few remarks to set that being. then i will request each of the panelists speak for about ten minutes each. and we will open to questions from the audience. when you do ask a question, please wait for the microphone to reach you. then please a identify yourself for the audience and for the recording that we are dealing simultaneously. looking back on 2010, it has been a tumultuous year, particularly for our region, but a year of somewhat mixed results. very quickly as i scanned the region as the india outpacing its neighbors economically and politically. pakistan ends the year in dire economic straits and a political system that is still very much present by not just the opposition, but members of the coalition of the pakistan

people's party that appear to be leveraging their position inside the coalition to get their ounce of flesh from the government. as a result joining the efforts to move forward. in afghanistan there appear to be signs of hope, both locally and in terms of what the coalition is trying to do. the big test will obviously come in the year ahead. enron is getting ready yet again. there is some hope that there will be some progress. again, as is usually the case with these talks one does not know if it will be two steps forward and one back or whether one step forward and to back. we will wait to see how things progress in 2011. sherlock deck, the good news is it is no longer in the news. things are stabilizing and consolidating the piece that they fought hard to achieve.

the good news about bangladesh is that it is back on the path of democracy and growth. in nepal and other countries democracy does still seem to be functioning. that is one of the reasons why we are here today, to talk about things. just a few words about india. india had the headline and got the jackpot this year. all five members of the security council of the united nations made the pilgrimage to new delhi with a view to seeking closer ties and economic relationships and also, if they could, to pace economic relationships on military sales on nuclear sales. everyone got something. i think of all the visitors to china probably get the prize

because china managed to not only get to india, but also follow it up immediately with the visit to pakistan where he also signed a multi-billion dollar deals. so of the five major bidders to india china was the best in the region. i cannot talk about 2010 without mentioning the way that the year has ended, with a huge loss with the death of ambassador richard holbrooke who has left a huge job that needs to be completed, a man that was truly irreplaceable in the diplomatic circuit. many regard him as one of the most influential diplomats of his generation. it is unclear whether the administration will actually try to fill his job or will try to make do, particularly at this

critical stage. so with those opening remarks, i'm going to request gilles dorronsoro to please come and make his opening comments. then he will be followed by mr. ikram sehgal. thank you. >> well, it is a pleasure to be here, and i want to thank you for your nice introduction, even if i have to mention that i was on the afghans died of the border. recently, of course. so, i think that when you look at 2010 what you see in afghanistan is a very good year for the taliban, naturally speaking. then we can discuss.

but naturally speaking, very good year. the taliban movement made progress in the north, the east, the center in pakistan is basically safe. it is a good idea for the center. and you have a huge group in the south which is not producing clear results at the moment. so that is the first. the second thing is that 2011 is going to be an interesting year. in 2011 we are going to see if it is working and not. here we are. that is the way to see the larger picture. you have a condition to succeed. none of the world, it easy to

win. can the car is two hours from pakistan by car. the full support of the pakistan military. my understanding, what we should say is increasing support. that is at least my interpretation. so obviously there is something, a question that has never been answered in the u.s., how the u.n. when the people are actually helping the taliban at the same time. how did you do this? you are giving your logistics' and at the same time they are supporting the taliban and at the same time you are giving a

lot of money to pakistan and especially the pakistani military. all of that, and indian policy that is absolutely sure to make islamabad. and all of that going on. you cannot have, for example, in new delhi one day. the other day the general came for intervention. it is just not possible. the cannot have both. this is the key problem. i am not even sure that it was a good idea. as a person, to do that. but as a concept it has failed. we were to organize it, and it failed. it never produced between

afghanistan, pakistan, and india. not even really on the table. so here is the problem. now, what are we going to see probably next year? is it possible to have some positive change? is the situation going to deteriorate? i would say that at this point i don't see any possibility for the coalition in afghanistan to win against the taliban. what i am seeing is that the european are leaving or at least implementing a strategy with a minimum amount of casualties. at the same time the taliban are going to be stronger. you're in the situation where

you will have less troops. then the idea that you can do that does not seem to work on the ground. i don't have one example where the afghan army has been able to contain the taliban, not attack, just contain. that is why it will be a terrible year. at the get this point we have to go to the larger picture. we have the problem in afghanistan, we actually are falling to objectives. structurally different, and different consequences. the first is to fight al qaeda. it is terrorism. then, of course, the first thing coming to your mind, and not in afghanistan. that's a problem.

we are spending 150, 60 million a year. going to be much higher. at the same time we are fighting, of course, al qaeda, the taliban. if the taliban wins al qaeda will be back. most of the experts will explain that it is possible to make a deal with the taliban. the pakistanis are ready to help make that deal. if you consider the sensibilities this war does not make sense. it just doesn't make sense. there is the second interpretation of the war. following documents from the u.s. army we know that the second objective is actually more global. from afghanistan and pakistan in

no way. also in iran. worse than they are today. second objective means that the war in afghanistan, not really the problem. it is an depending upon which side you are. and of course it is the key. if you are fighting terrorism the war does not make sense. just think about it. 120 million the year. you will see that does not make sense to fight a few thousand people. but the second objective, that is why we have a problem. pakistan is not telling -- the

united states is not going to. much more present in afghanistan and then that is why. impossible task the pakistan army now to fight against the afghan taliban because it's not what they consider their national interest. we are in a situation where particularly we are following different objectives. it's not very clearly said. and actually producing irrationality. one policy for india and one for pakistan. that doesn't make sense. now, what could we say about 2011? first thing is that the timing is going to be the key element, and that would be my last.

the timing will be the key element. why? because if the negotiation stops with the taliban, the pakistani military. it won't be before the next u.s. president. so, the window of opportunity is basically an late spring and summer. october in the united states. so who will take this sort of risk. if nothing happens next spring is going to be after 2012. two possibilities. so able to adopt new policy. if it's a new president he will take some time. that is why, actually, what we are seeing in afghanistan, the

whole thing is that we have a logical escalation which is not clearly defined. stronger. we don't want to negotiate. just one window of possibility to do something different. again, we don't know exactly what will happen with iran, iraq, and all of that puts more constraint on the u.s. policy toward afghanistan. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. eighty-four having me back. i just want to thank you because

i waited for a long time to hear a brilliant explanation of the situation. in fact, he took most of my talking points. [laughter] however, i want to pick up, first of all, and give you something of the situation on the ground in pakistan today. pakistan today, that as first start with the counter insurgency operations. the counterinsurgency operations which was much delayed has been brilliantly carried out in the last 18 months, first in the north and now the south. now upwards of 6-7 divisions of the pakistan army have been deployed and rotated in and out. the general those much more about it than i do because he has more access.

but, for ten years the pakistan army for once has done its mission. that is to defend the country's integrity. in the process they have given a tremendous sacrifice. test to give you an idea, people were, my badge mates, 17 lieutenant-colonel lost their sons and battle. you can imagine the character figure and the officer-man ratio is 1-10 or 1-12. it has been a tremendous battle. we have lost roughly eight or nine times the same amount of

casualties that the coalition has suffered at the same time. incidentally the a ron army has suffered 25%, which is not strange. they have never been engaged in battle. they did not fight. they joined the taliban. and they are going to keep in their own camps and allow the united states army and the millions to keep fighting. so, if you look pakistan has given up a very grave sacrificed in the last 18 months. as far as counter-terrorism is

concerned, what we have done in the military basis, certainly the terrorist, but as far as counter-terrorism within the heartland of pakistan we are at zero. we have done nothing. people have been caught here and there, but really we have done nothing because there is no counter-terrorism force and pakistan. our situation politically, shuja nawaz talked about it. the coalition government. the existence is ingenuous because they are being blackmailed by mty pers , two minority partners, if not one. the julif and mgm. as far as the government is

concerned certainly i agree that richard holbrooke lost because he was more pakistan centric. he certainly did a lot for pakistan and the present government. the president pakistan government will find it very difficult to survive, at least invested perceptions without richard holbrook's broad shoulders to support them. economically we are in a mess. in a sense that just before i walked in the imf package is in doldrums. we cannot deliver the reform. ..

the mission was to eliminate al qaeda. the secondary mission was to -- the taliban. that is initially, found out that the taliban is resilient and -- but let us go back to the primary mission. the countem war is in pakistan and the sooner people realize it, the better. there will have to be a concerted counterterrorism action withinkikikikiki. this is the heartland of pakistan, and it is a tenuous situation and i think really at the end of the day, the fighting that has taken place in

afghanistan is taking all the money and all the effort. the effort will have to be put inside pakistan and it will have to be primarily pakistani effort. now, why one may ask is a country which has the epicenter of terrorism, why doesn't it have a counterterrorism force? you may ask this question. this is ridiculous, because a counterterrorism force will act against all sections of the whole gambit. why did terrorism come about? terrorism came about because of corruption. terrorism came about because of organized crime and terrorism came about because of the injustice that was there. now, al qaeda has many faces in

pakistan. it is not osama bin laden only. there is lashkar-e-taiba, many number of terrorist organization exist things which now has links with organized crime. because there is no way that a person can travel or send money without the symbiotic relationship between organized crime and terrorism. and that is the heart of the problem. by pakistani politicians will never allow a counterterrorism force because there are links there. if you go to karachi, why should the mqm oral the people's party about counterterrorism force there? because when a counter is a -- counterterrorism force operates there they will go after their strongholds. they will go after the weapons that are there. they will go after their bases,

their sources of supply and logistics. obviously the counterterrorism force does not create any -- in karachi and in pakistan today. now, you know i do agree we have had a tremendous year. obviously india is a great impression and i think they must have a admired because they have done really well. and at the same time, you know one must look at the last at doak china. china is a great friend of pakistan and yet china went to india and had a very pragmatic meeting with india because china wants honest neighbors to have a good relationship with all of its neighbors. you must ask yourself this

question. india is a great country, there is no doubt about it. but india must learn that it must deal with its neighbors in that sense and that neighbor is not only pakistan, bangladesh, nepal, sri lanka and if you really look at it wired the neighbors -- for india, it is india's turn to come forward and do something if i may use the word to do more with its neighbor. it has to compromise a little bit. it has an interest there is no doubt but look at the amount -- even trade, 70 million people in pakistan, 160 million in england , 30 million in nepal, 20 million in sri lanka, tremendous amount of prey can have it as a free trade area and that can only come about when it has a good relationship with its neighbors. now, you know, i go back to

something about afghanistan. if you really want to be successful in afghanistan, go after the poppy cultivation. it is the poppy cultivation that fuels the war in afghanistan and let me explain to you how it fuels the war in afghanistan. >> to start with, is the farmers and they are taxed the taliban. the taliban says grow your poppy and you will pay this tax. the poppy moves into the -- most are owned by members of the government. so, if you want to -- so by the by the taliban taxes them also and they get money from them also. so you have a relationship where the poppy cultivation is a source of income for the government people, for the taliban, whatever so you have got to go after the poppy

cultivation. i was very surprised when i found there was really no concerted effort to go after the poppy cultivation and afghanistan. that is where you start. if there has to be -- it has to be towards good governance and that good governance will take some doing. but my own feeling is that, and i think we are heading towards the direction for some sort of accommodation will calm in the future. in a year, two years i don't know but it will come about. but the real war i go back within pakistan. that is ground zero and that is where the thing is. ladies and gentlemen let me tell you very clearly that unless you address the core question that terrorism there and you have a counterterrorism force which can

be created overnight,. in the 1980s and antenna card explicitly set up and that force did a tremendous job because they reduce poppy cultivation to almost nil and the drug craze was downgraded to 10 or 15%. it has its own personnel. that has its intelligence. overnight, it can be turned into a relationship with the culture and terrorism. my good friend geoffrey styles gives me a lot of information about -- which is there and already has approval so you have got an entity in place. you have got the funds available and overnight you can have a counterterrorism force which will gain with the main problem. that is to eliminate al qaeda

and unless you go and go into the heartland of pakistan, going to the infrastructure of al qaeda, all the logistics, the money laundering, the drug trade, the arms trade, the people who make passports, the people who make i.d. cards etc., the people who do the arms smuggling, you are not going to go anywhere. this problem will grow. thank you very much. >> thank yous ikram. in view of the fact that we have such and it distinguished audience and people with expertise in the region i'm going to. my claim as the moderator to ask the first question so i'm going to open it up to the qwest -- audience. if you would like to ask a question please raise your hand and identify you and come to the item. please do remember to identify

yourself for the audience. >> i am with "nation magazine." so, i am sorry. i am bob with the "nation magazine." it seems to me almost like pakistan saying it wants to find terrorists just like i was a -- oj saying he wants to find his wife's killer. maybe i'm missing something here, but a cousin of the unequal relationship between pakistan and india, it seems obvious to me that pakistan has spent a quarter of a century building terrorist groups and still supports them across the board. so, i mean, let's call facts facts here and not talk about how pakistan needs to form a counterterrorism force. pakistan is in the terrorism business it seems to me. >> i think you are absolutely wrong. can you imagine my giving you -- to kill myself.

what you are saying the isi is funding the terrorist to kill isi versus. the most people that have been attacked and pakistan today as far as personnel and families are concerned are the army and the isi so what you are saying is, and the isi officer 90% by the army so what you are saying is here's a group that says okay fine, here is the money. arm and train yourselves and come and kill me, right? that is nonsense. yes, i agree with you. many years ago and there is no doubt about it, pakistan was not in the terrorism business but in the business of supporting the freedom fight within kashmir and there is ... it. summerlong defined that was wrong. but today for the last few years certainly that is not a correct thing and you cannot be a correct thing. how can you expect he army officers -- how many generals have been lost in pakistan?

six brigadier generals. there is a tremendous price paid. how many families? how many people have been killed in their homes? so you think that is what the pakistan army is? they think that is ridiculous for you to say that pakistan is end -- there is nothing official about it. >> maybe i can add something. some groups are partially controlled but not totally and there is a very very strange situation. that is the key point. the afghan taliban are not fighting the pakistani army.

they are in pakistan especially in qatar and allude to stand. and that is also why there are drone attacks or even attacks on the ground in the frontier province. it is a situation where most of the farc are in the tribal area. when the taliban, -- for the fighting in baluchistan and nobody can strike baluchistan because the pakistani army,

there is a line here. you cannot strike qatar and you cannot strike the cities, so i think that is also part of the conversation. >> thank you. >> can i ask the panel is to address main issues in the obama administration and the threat outside of the taliban that is the haqqani network which of course has the sanctuary north of waziristan but if you could assess right now but he believed to be the strength of the haqqani network is racially and light of the special operations raised not only in pakistan but on the afghan side where i sat does have much more access to go after them? thank you. >> first, in your question there is the idea that the haqqani network is a outside the talibak

is wrong. so far, as far as i know, the haqqani network is inside the taliban. at least give me proof that they are not. did we see in the last 10 years clashes or just a clash actually between the people working for haqqani and people working for omar? did we see official, i mean, kind of official communiqué from haqqani? i don't think so. underground, if you are looking at the taliban organization, you know that you have the provincial organization. there is never been a conflict. >> i just want to address the

haqqani network and their operations. >> but it is very important to start with that because from that you know that they are part of the larger strategy and you cannot distinguish because where does it stop the haqqani network? the haqqani network implements part of the network and it made total sense so i would be very very careful about that. to answer exactly your question, first older east and they prefer to phrase it like that in you have seen the taliban organization, specially because the tribes are not totally out of the picture. the afghan tribes talk with the taliban. they are being destroyed as political forces. the second is that the eastern taliban network are now very close to jalalabad and kabul.

that is why i'm very pessimistic in this area. that is one part of the equation. the second part of the equation is that it seems that people close to haqqani and even the idea of a haqqani network that is totally closed is complicated. basically, targeting specific people in afghanistan often link to terrorist. that is probably a little bit special in the general picture. and nothing indicates so far that there is any kind of pressure under this network from the pakistani army. of course there is a -- in waziristan but there are also technical problems. does not easy to invade and more importantly to stay in these areas and second, so far there is no clashes between the

haqqani people and the pakistani army. so, what i'm seeing is that it is very dynamic. their make in progress and they are not under a strategic threat under pakistan's. >> i would just like to add to what gilles has said. both from swat and south waziristan and other elements that escaped from the pakistani army's operations. that became a point of contention and i think sooner or later the pakistani army will have to go against the haqqani network and they very well recognize this. the question is very obvious that since they are not active against pakistan they will be

starting a new -- because there are much better equipped than the other insurgents. number two, the pakistani army is really stretch now. they will need far more helicopters. fortunately it was a helicopter pilot and i've flown in that area. is a very difficult area and almost inaccessible. they can be ambush very quickly so what you really need is a lot of effort. i think that is what is at the moment dissuading the pakistan army from finally moving toward the haqqani network but i think there is a growing recognition that at the end of the day ultimately they have got to get rid of terrorism within pakistan. the people that the haqqani network has to be addressed and the pakistani army will have to

move against them. >> them. >> if i could add to that just having come back from pakistan and having finished a study of counterinsurgency in the nexus with counterterrorism, my own information indicates also that pakistan army still has unfinished business in the border region with the kunar province in afghanistan. they also have unfinished business in the border region between the agencies of thoughts the. where they thought they were fighting the final battle and they couldn't clear their whole area. so there are sanctuaries in the valley which connects to afghanistan on the kunar side of the afghan border which they feel they need to clear before they can move additional troops to north waziristan. then there is the weather. winter is now setting in and it is going to be nearly impossible to fight in north waziristan because of the territory. you have favre be heard from the

other panelists about the difficult terrain. currently the pakistan army has something like 35 to 37,000 troops inside north waziristan. they are basically trying to dominate the space but they are being attacked and they are being killed almost on a daily basis according to my reports by the people that escaped from south waziristan and that are being harbored by either the haqqani group directly or by their allies in north waziristan. so there is a co-mingling that is now occurring and they think soon we will be able to say that there is no difference between the afghan, taliban and the local taliban in north waziristan. >> if i may just add one thing. that is the problem with the idea that you force the pakistani army to fight the afghani taliban. the problem is we are creating a common interest with the

pakistani taliban, so-called taliban. and these people were not born to be together with, and interest. they are very different people but the more we are putting pressure, the more we are creating common interest. if you make a deal with the taliban you can secure the afghan side of the border basically. if you find the afghan taliban and the pakistani taliban, the problem is it gets out of control because no foreign army is going to control--. >> thank you gilles. >> the barbara slavin. i want to ask a little bit more about the regional context. you have been so negative every

time i hear you say it is getting worse and it will never get any better. i have heard recently samore optimistic discussions coming out of afghanistan for take it where he about trade routes. trade coming from central asia, going through iran, going through the indian courts, way to avoid pakistan province connected with pakistan. a very positive prognostication about mineral wealth and pipeline deals and so on. is the classy than a quarter full in your view? is there nothing good that is going on? >> thank you for the question because it it is good to make two points. first leg -- is to be right or wrong and basically i used to be

called pessimistic or whatever. was i right two or three years ago? it seems i was right. was i right in 2003 when i was writing about the taliban coming back to afghanistan? i was right so the problem was not that i was pessimistic. that is my first . the second is, and this is a key element, when i am pessimistic, it is about certain element of the afghan situation. when you were basically pulling billions of dollars in afghanistan, of course you are creating an economy that is very dynamic. the real estate in kabul right now is undone, the prices have increased and then you have a very dynamic afghan society.

the problem is that it is very fragile and it is artificial twister to extend because basically it is totally -- afghanistan is not at all a remote country. in two cases of course it is going to tip to the outside world. the afghan society is very dynamic dissent translate into stability. that is the key point. on the contrary. the more you are creating interest to continue the war. the main source for the taliban, financial resources for the taliban, is the --. we are giving according to the places five, 10, sometimes 20% just to be able to work in the

countryside right now. so it is unstable. we are putting far too much money in afghanistan and if he put in that amount of money you are creating -- the fight against corruption does make sense. when you are putting $1 million in one province because sometimes it is that amount of money, you cannot do something with the money. so of course you find -- with a suitcase with 40 or $50 billion going to dubai because there is no way -- okay, it is is the culture and it is bad but also there is no way and most of the people would do the same thing. so those are my two points but thank you for the question. >> did you mean to say massoud's brother? barbara has a quick follow-up and then we will move to. >> just a quick follow-up and

that is the nation-building efforts such as it is. again i accept a lot of the money is flushing over into corruption but can you give any evaluation of the efforts that have been made by the prt, by the 1000 civilians, u.s. civilians that are now apparently in afghanistan working on rule of law and all of these other social programs? is that also offered now? >> we don't know. we don't feel the impact. i ask my students to work on that, just between us. nobody can find a good study explaining what is the impact of the provincial constitution. what is the problem with the

afghan law? the afghan law, we are checking the inputs so the amount of money basically. we are checking the out put, is the building there? but never the outcome. so we don't know the impact in the political situation and is very interesting because i found actually planned study which is not very well done. basically we don't know the impact. when you have $1 billion in quick emergency aid, 1.2 actually, and 2008, so this cash money. what is the impact on society in afghanistan? basically we do not know. you have hundreds or thousands of entities working in afghanistan. there is no mistake. there is no mistake. nobody knows exactly. the impact on the society, we

can see this creating social tensions of course because some people are becoming -- in a few years so there is no market in the real sense of the term and it is creating tensions between groups, tribes, whatever. that is what we are seeing in kandahar very small group of people is taking 80% of the money. one of the key problems is that there is no reform of the current inspections. there is no judge in kandahar. the situation is worse than three months ago and i don't see how you can just not put in any administration and think it is going to work. so that is a key point, is not working very well.

>> thank you gilles. >> it would just like to add that some of the money has come back to pakistan. 60% of the transport is owned by afghans within pakistan actually. and you know that is a source. the problem is again, we really get nothing for the interest for the rules. biggest beneficiary and we suffer also at the same time. >> stan kober with the cato institute. a few days ago there was a bombing in iran and a couple of days ago reports in the iranian press that president ahmadinejad called president zardari and basically said you take care of this problem or else.

and that is what i want to ask. nobody is talking about the possibility of iranian forces going across the border. iranians have been complaining about this for some time. is their patience runs out and they decide to intervene how does that affect the situation in south asia? >> if you will allow me maybe i can begin to reply and i am sure gilles and ikram will have if you also. as a historian i go back to 1972 he was discussing just this iran pakistan issue. ipod time there was an insurgency in baluchistan and the shah was basically saying if pakistan doesn't solve this problem, we will. at first he sent over 20 or 30 helicopters to help the pakistan

army fight the insurgents but then he was losing patience and it is quite clear that iran has always been very concerned about what happens on the border with pakistan. as for the bombing that was recently reported, from all the public reporting it appears to have been a sectarian issue, because of the processions during the first 10 days particularly on the tenth day of -- so this may or may not have been related to some of the other terrorist activities that i ran that have been based in pakistan. the biggest complaint in recent years was about jim dole and from all reports that have come out in the last year or so, thus pakistan's intelligence that helped iran capture the ahead. maybe there is a shift in the

pakistani calculus and not allowing them to operate in that area and maybe there is a difference of opinion about that that is about all i can add to the discussion. >> just before i came we were discussing this issue about the two borders, the eastern side in the northwestern side. pakistan is in a difficult position as far as that is concerned. certainly i think our people they did operate on the pakistani side and i think there was a bit of not official but unofficial ignoring them. but at the same time we must remember that pakistanis have very good relationship with the air of country, and south arabia etc. who are definitely not very

friendly because of iranian intentions and israeli intentions. pakistan is in a difficult position. it is a serious position that we must address. we cannot afford to have iranian forces coming in because that is all the people need because with the army already stressed, think that would need a catastrophic situation for us. >> my assessment would be that that -- what i mean is that anytime we have an event it is a bad event. i don't remember an event being positive. when you are trying to make -- is touring and it takes time. it is rational.

doesn't make the news very much and when you bomb a car or whatever you are in the news or whatever. all the events are potentially dangerous and for example if there is a second mumbai attack, we don't know what would have happened. my second is that the situation is getting better in the sense that they have -- in iraq now thanks to the u.s. invasion and they will have more next year and the year after. and they can, they can deal with turkey for the north, for the kurdish side. so undecided is better. in afghanistan, they think that the strategy is going to work for code that is the general opinion of of the russian

diplomats. everybody thinks it is going to work so they just have to wait basically. that is why i don't think that iran will take any risk of a fight or any kind direct confrontation with pakistan. that is is not the right moment. it could give the united states to -- put more pressure. and away i am -- time is the key element and their main problem. [inaudible] which have been active with the people and therefore afraid of the and the fact that they think that the united states has been

financing the kurdish groups for the last few years. they are much more afraid of internal dissent than the more strategic picture. >> thank you gilles. >> mr. dorronsoro wants to clarify one thing. and understand your second goal of u.s. policy to have influence, long-term influence into central asia and iran from afghanistan. i just wanted to clarify did you think that was a sustainable policy or not? is there anything which is consistent with u.s. interests there? >> for the first question, yeah i was probably not very clear.

knowno, my idea was basically it is at some point you find something which is generally not very impressive but something is going to top. so, no it is not. the second question is i have a clear idea. what i think we should do us much more difficult, vis-à-vis afghanistan. first, india should not help support and finance the groups, people who are trying to sell in

washington the idea that they are going to contain the alabama alabama -- taliban if we give them arms and money. and i am not speaking theoretically. it is very practical. so, think it is a very bad idea because the idea that we could withdraw for example. that is what the ambassador was suggesting. when we withdraw from afghanistan and leave the taliban in control of the border it is just totally irrational. are securities on the border so if you want to make a deal with the people on the border it is certainly -- where there is not as far as i know some kind of transnational threats you know so this policy is both dangerous because it could be the disintegration of. you will have this integration

of pakistan. that is a given. so you are putting a system in place that is totally crazy. what they should not do is also try to be very visible. it should be low-profile. and the third thing is, because i mean it is putting pressure on afghanistan and the last point is that they should try to negotiate with their coalition their security interests. that means we have -- afghanistan should not be a base for jihad this groups for the next 9/11 event or the next mumbai and that is a strong position in the negotiation. on that, we have all the same interests.

and that would be part and that should be part of the negotiation with the taliban and pakistan. and it is not just a piece of paper. it is how do you do it? so is it possible for example -- it is doable and. [inaudible] >> i think in short, there is a red flag for pakistan and afghanistan. i think their particular interest would be solved by the economic and let's have less conflict on on the border etc.. i think that would be -- the

pakistani establishment is very suspicious of india and it intentions in afghanistan and they feel that you know everything is done with a purpose. so i think one major thing india can do this to say to pakistan we will help with political ambitions and secondly the as gilles said --. >> if if i could just add to that. i i think pakistan probably needs to also change its way of looking at afghanistan and no longer see if solely through the prism of the pashtun. i think the the same mistake that goes back to the time of the soviet invasion and the fact that the contiguous area was pashtun made pakistan and allied inside of afghanistan and this constant harping on trying to have a rebalance government in

kabul really is not one pakistan many friends inside of afghanistan. apart from alienating a very substantial proportion of the population, which constitutes the uzbek, the tajik and so on. i think that would help and clearly both india and pakistan do have a common aim in afghanistan which is stability because of afghanistan is stable then pakistan will be stable and if afghanistan and pakistan are stable you can start opening the borders between india and pakistan and connect through afghanistan to tajikistan and provide the energy that india will need to sustain its nine and 10% annual growth rate or goes so there are many things that could drive working together in afghanistan rather than working against each other. >> and just come coming you are perfectly right and to the idea

that pakistan is going to go -- controlled afghanistan, is not going to work. the day the taliban is back in afghanistan, they will take about of distance and look, the taliban were back in afghanistan. basically they were very autonomous from pakistan and they did plenty of things that were absolutely against pakistani interests. so, it is very possible to find a deal with the border in the idea with neutrality in afghanistan. so because the taliban are part of a government they will obey pakistan i think is --.

>> president obama is running out of time because next july 2011 he has to reassess its strategy. there are reports although denied, that there are plans for usaid to go into pakistan and do some operations against the afghan taliban. if america does that order of the dangers and benefits of that? >> first of all, the pakistani army is not fighting the --. the haqqani network are operating, i agree with that but the taliban as a separate entity and i think you will want him to explain that. the second part of your question is definitely a disaster. if there are boots on the ground from the united states inside pakistan, i don't think any

pakistan government or anybody in the -- will be able to sustain that without immediately reacting. the first thing they will do is stop all of the supply routes. i would say to start but that is the first thing they should do. the second thing of course and i strongly feel that there is an attack on pakistan, they will fight back on the issues but i think that would be a total disaster. that would escalate the situation out-of-control. i think that should not even come -- and i saw that article which came out yesterday in "the new york times." i think basically i mean the little bit that i understand it is confined to the general mass of people and pakistan.

[inaudible] and a i say to you that there are pakistani intelligence but the fact that american boots being on the ground, that would be a disaster. >> well, of course i mean it is not even a rational. i mean it is very strange. i don't know who are the sources in "the new york times" very clearly but i hope it was just an overoptimistic article. the thing is that now we should reassess. the united states should reassess its policy towards pakistan in the sense that it is

better to keep the connection between the afghan taliban and the pakistan army at this point because even if the pakistanis are trying to fight the afghan taliban they will not succeed very clearly and you will have a situation where it will be very difficult to find somebody to talk with. at this point i am more afraid of the lack of people to talk with more than the insurgency has such. for example if pakistan changes totally its policy, so -- 24 hours and they can do that of course. so there is no more taliban but you still have a very strong insurgency inside of afghanistan. plus you have afghan, taliban and pakistani taliban working totally together and both sides of the border. what is the worst? i am not sure it is the better situation and honestly i don't think it is a very important

strategy being gained. >> let me add to that. i think there is an additional danger and gilles mentioned that in his opening remarks which is but very powerful budding relationship between the afghan taliban, the pakistani taliban and the punjabi military groups which are a far more serious threat regionally and globally now as all the current reports are indicating. they have links in india with bangladesh and with people in europe and north america. these groups are much more dangerous and can certainly create a very serious problem in the heartland of pakistan where it will be near impossible for the pakistan military to be deployed in the punjab. they can also create a very serious situation with india. if another mumbai attack occurs i think prime minister singh will find it difficult to resist

the clamor for some kind of action against pakistan so i would say that is the nightmare scenario. i think when one looks at afghanistan and the taliban situation, quite often military planners do what they do which is they look at the tactical issue. if only i could just go across and grabbed these guys to bring them back, but this is not a simple equation. is a multi-varied equation and you need to be able to look at pakistan, india afghanistan iran, everyone all at the same time. i think that is something that needs cooler heads to prevail. a hope in in the isaf senior command in kabul and islamabad and in washington. >> thank you. could you comment a bit about the success or lack thereof of

efforts to build up the afghan security forces and the police and are you confident that they can take a security lead started in july as the obama administration hopes? >> let me tell you first, i mentioned that the national army during the soviet time never fought the majority. the one national army deserted and block the taliban. and the iran national army is not fighting the taliban. and look at the desertion rate. in the iran national security forces police almost 75% annually and then the iran national army 25%. look at the -- i would say it is a test of whether an army is engaged in battle are not.

what is the characteristics of the army? at least i have tried to research them and have not been able to find it. more than 100 in the last 18 months in the iran national army. >> quickly, three points on the afghan mission. first it takes time to train officers and we don't have officers. i mean we have officers usually but we don't have a new generation of officers so it is not going to be ready in 2014, that is for sure. the second problem we have is that the nctc questioned in the afghan army is becoming really bad in the sense that most of the people fighting in armand or whatever are non-pashtun. pashtun are not joining.

there are a few exceptions. the -- try because they are doing that all of the time, 50, 60 years. but generally no. you have a situation where the guise of fighting are fighting the in the armand, they are -- and that is a huge problem. the rest of the problem is you can build an army without a state basically. it is a bit risky i think. what we are doing now in afghanistan, there is no more -- in afghanistan to be clear. the state is losing ground all of the time. they have no control of the population. there is no control of the countryside and in the south we see that -- there is basically

nothing. and there you want to build an army of 300,000 or more people but officers are human beings. they have a political affiliation. they need to fight for a state. they want to fight for something. and what you are seeing now is that more and more -- is acting as a kind of good federation and the old tradition where he is paying networks of people in and the army is going this way because he wants to put demolish inside of the army and the private security inside the army. my feeling is that the army is not going to be a strong organizational institutiinstituti on with this kind of culture that you are part of an institution. and for the police i think the

basic problem is that we are asking the police to do a counterinsurgency job and they cannot do it. but the basic premise is more that they are not equipped to fight the taliban. that is it. >> gilles mentioned this idea of little bit before and talked about this a little bit before but it was probably ambassador rockwell who said there should be a de facto partition of taliban but that is the most realistic outcome and perhaps that would reduce the u.s. reliance on pakistan and all that entails. do you see any merits in this argument for de facto partition or do you is unrealistic way of thinking? >> i think it is unrealistic. i think afghanistan is a nation. i think my own feeling is that

this even-handed policy, you know when the taliban had a few years of dead ruled they did reach out except for the punjab state did reach out. i think ultimately you have to come to a solution. you cannot -- and that will create more problems. then what is going to happen is that you have division and they were going to have trouble in some attack inside -- pakistani border. you start one problem that create another problem and then once we have over to stand, they will search sing something and waziristan will start saying something. so what you do is you may start one problem but start many of the problems.

>> i agree that -- there is a worse case scenario that we can develop into worlds. that as is things are not going well and for washington politico negotiate with the taliban. so one way to -- out is to quickly with plenty of money some militia in the north around kabul and you exit. without an argument. that is not likely because -- it is a headache and almost impossible but let's follow this you would have a huge ethnic cleansing because don't forget millions of pashtun are vb