and the role you have played in much of our foreign policy. i know we had an extensive conversation in her office -- in our office. general petraeus has asked that we support efforts in afghanistan through this fighting season. i think people, generally speaking, have been willing to do that. i think you sent in our conversation that among numbers of people here, we are expecting a really dramatic changes at the end of this fighting season. we expect and know that you will help guide to those changes into a different place for it all of us know the model that we have an afghanistan is not sustainable. formal double reasons we have talked about in detail and in private. i am just here to thank you today for your willingness to do this. i don't know why you would come back and do this other than you are a great american and we

thank you for that. there are numbers of questions we can ask you that you cannot answer yet. i think you all know that there is a great degree -- is not in patients -- a great degree of us knowing that what we are doing there is not sustainable, it is greatly changing the character of the country. that your knowledge there hopefully will help us in the partnership that doesn't exist the way it should impact of the situation. i look forward to talking you -- to you on the ground in afghanistan and i thank you for your willingness to do this. >> thank you, sir. >> center web. >> let me pile on with everybody else. are clearly a national treasure. we're happy to see you going over into that part of the world.

we had the opportunity to discuss my major concern when you visited with me is how we really define our strategic objectives in afghanistan and how that matches up with what we are able to accomplish in a cost-benefit way. that is one thing you are hearing from many people is how much do we actually need to achieve and afghanistan with respect to our national interests? how much do people want to achieve that may be above what we need to? are we getting into this area of nation building? how much can we cheat? how much of that actually benefits our strategic objectives? that is what i have been struggling with for more than one year now. i don't know if you saw the column that peggy noonan wrote

recently for "the wall street journal," she clearly is not a radical and she is one of the bright lights of the ronald reagan administration in which i was very proud to serve. one of the strong comments she was making was that if there is any nation in the world that really needs nation building right now, it is the united states of america. when we are putting hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure in another country, it should only be done if we can articulate a vital national interest. we need to be doing a lot more of that here. time is short but can you please articulate for us your view of the strategic interests of the united states in afghanistan and how the current military policy can help bring us to and in point in that strategic objective? >> thank you, senator.

that is the essential question. as i said in my statement, and as the president and others have said, our ultimate strategic objective is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-qaeda. in the afghan context, we want to ensure that afghanistan never again becomes what it was before 9/11, an area in which al qaeda can reconstitute itself under protection of light-minded elements. >> i watched your opening statement from my office. i don't disagree with the objective but you've pretty well fight international terrorism without remain the

entire societal structure. would you agree? i watched your comment about how we are in afghanistan and pakistan but you could end up in that region playing whack-qa- mole. the real question is what is the ultimate objective with all of these ground forces and all of the infrastructure programs in terms of the long-term advantage? >> again, an important and multifaceted issue. what we have seen with the additional forces and the effort to carry the fight into enemy strongholds is tangible progress insecurity on the ground in the south and west. this has to transition.

we are seeing a transition of seven provinces and districts to afghan control to sustainable afghan control. you can already see what we are trying to do. province by province, district by district, we want to establish the conditions for the afghan government can take over and hold ground. youre absolutely right -- don't have to build a whole nation to achieve that. >> international terrorism and global warfare in general is intrinsically mobile. i fought a guerrilla war in vietnam. securing one particular area does unnecessarily -- i don't see this critically, as it is out of concern for the policy --

it does not necessarily guarantee that you reduce the capability of those kinds of forces. they are mobile. the reason that they are international in scope as they don't align themselves with any particular governmental structure. i want to lay that out as an area of continued concern. i want to ask you one more question in the time we have. when you visited my office, we tend to speak of the conciliators in this region simply along pakistan- afghanistan-india access. i believe china could play a role that they could step up and be more overt in their willingness to participate in these types of solutions. they will clearly benefit if there is more stability in the region. what your thoughts on that? >> that is a great point.

as we talk about the three elements of our strategy, the third one is very much involved in regional engagement. i would join you in including china in that discussion. the chinese, as you are aware, have the copper concession in afghanistan. ok, that's great. you can only really make that pay off for you if the conditions on the ground permit its extraction and transport. >> they also have a long relationship with pakistan. some people say that is overstated. in fact, when chairman kerry

returned from pakistan, the prime minister of pakistan made a statement to china and was welcomed and stated that china was pakistan's greatest record i wish you the best and i am grateful that you are undertaking this. i look forward to visiting new and perhaps continuing our discussion. >> thank you. ambassador crocker, i join my colleagues in thank you for your willingness to continue to serve the country. i certainly stand ready and i'm sure all this do to be helpful to you if you take on this new assignment. i know you have not had a chance to review the report that was released this morning from the committee. i think it provides a renewed perspective on how difficult the challenges are in afghanistan. it particular highlights the

civilian challenges and much of that has been discussed by others here. the report certainly underscores the need for our reconstruction projects in afghanistan to be necessary, achievable, and sustainable. i know there have been some concerns about the projects undertaken under the sirp program. i share concerns about how those dollars are distributed. i have called for a number of steps to try to address more accountability in afghanistan. i am very pleased to see the overhaul of the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. that is something i thought also was long overdue. the appointment of the senior civilian representative to serve as a counterpart to the military

commander there is good. i know you have not gotten off the ground there but i wonder if you can assess, at this stage, what difference that might be making in afghanistan and what you would expect your relationship as ambassador to be with those two civilian counterparts there? >> thank you, senator. i join you in a concern for accountability. i was embassador in iraq and we all learned a lot of hard lessons. i would hope to see those lessons being applied now in afghanistan and i think they are. for some of the initiatives and others that i mentioned earlier,

the usaid trance -- program and others. , the accountable assistance for a chemist and and so forth. one of my first consultations was with the state inspector general. i had a very close working relationship with the head of sigur in iraq who i have a lot of regard for. i am pleased that sigar seems to be moving toward the great capability. i look forward to welcoming the gao which i understand plans to

set up permanent staff in the fall. all of these institutions, the state of ig, the usaid, the gao all have an important responsibility in ensuring oversight and accountability. you know the phrase -- we are here to help -- sometimes help can be painful but in my experience in iraq, i found that kind of oversight to be absolutely essential going forward. i will certainly, if confirmed, employ the same approach in afghanistan. >> are there experiences from your time in iraq that you think can be helpful in terms of coordinating all these efforts? for those of us looking at what is going on on the ground, as

you point out, there are many people they're trying to address oversight and accountability but how is all that getting coordinated? we know we have general petraeus on the military side. is there a similar command structure on the civilian side? who is responsible? >> thank you for that question because it is an important one. basically, there are two and only two u.s. commanders in afghanistan as there were in iraq, one military and one civilian. the civilian commander is u.s. ambassador. i would like to say that as i have consulted, i think has doner i can veeikenberry an amazing job in the swift ramp up of a presence in ensuring it

has been done in an orderly an organized manner. if confirmed, i will need to make my own assessments. my sense is that he has handled a huge challenge with great care, often is, and ability. there are micro-coordination issues. you may be referring to this. i have an obligation to see that the entire u.s. mission is effectively carrying and its various roles. i also want to be sure that the accountability element of this, the different inspection agencies, are themselves coordinated. we had to wrestle with this a bit in iraq. we did not have different inspectors inspecting the same thing and not working in coordination.

there is also a whole military inspection apparatus that also has to be woven into this. as i did in iraq, i have a responsibility to see that the whole mission is operate effectively, and they give you credit to ambassador eikenberry, if i am confirmed, i feel i will be representing a going concern. i need to make sure that all parts are working as a team and not in isolation or in competition with each other. >> thank you. >> i will join the other members of this committee in banking ambassador crocker and your family for your willingness to come out of retirement and take on yet again another vital mission to the united states at this time in kabul. i am very encouraged by your successful prius service in iraq and the difficult circumstances you negotiated there.

i was concerned, one visit to afghanistan as a relatively new senator to hear repeatedly about our generational commitment to the stability and security of the nation of afghanistan. in your opening testimony, you cited secretary gates'' comment that we walked away from iraq with disastrous, -- consequences. in the previous comments, number of us are trying to get at the question -- if we are not going to walk away, how long will we stay? and at what level? there is a lot of focus on the immediate decision about a drawdown. i am equally if not more interested in the post-2014 structure and what looks like. i was surprised to hear in country assertions that we were committed to staying in more than 300,000 member afghan national security force which meant paying for it. and to a sustained u.s.

military presence for the foreseeable future, a decade or more. you also made a comment that we are not seeking permanent military bases in afghanistan. i wonder if you would comment the importance of achieving an afghans -- a u.s. -- in iraq, you achieve a strategic agreement that allowed for long term stabilization. what importance is there in afghanistan to are having a long-term u.s. coalition military presence? where do you think we are headed in terms of retaining strategic regional abilities? how sustainable do you think best 2014, assistance required to support 300,000 really is? a few questions, nothing difficult. these are shared questions that many of us are confronting. >> they certainly are that mega

questions. they are important ones. if confirmed, i will be very much focused on these questions. i would expect to be out there for a couple of years. i am not ducking by saying i just don't know the answer now. i do think that we have an interest in ensuring that the country does not backslide. it does not become in al qaeda shape -- safe haven. we all share that. how do you do it and how much does it cost and how long does it take? these are questions that my colleagues and i will have to work on. we are accountable to you as you

ask them. as we saw in iraq, by going in big, you can then come out small. iraq as oil and it helps to have oil beside the corruption issue there. they can pay for many things that the afghans cannot. i think the strategic partnership declaration process is important as the strategic framework agreement was in iraq. it left both countries know -- it lets both countries know which way they want to move in the future. will lookdome different than iraq but it is intended to serve the same purpose.

in terms of the ultimate in state for afghan national security forces, the target is to have them police and army of three under thousand by this october. that is not a number that is engraved in stone and would never change. i am speculating here. we will have to see how the circumstances develop over time. as the first renditions of the seven jurisdictions and provinces take place and how they do. farther down the road, 2014, 2015, the afghans may decide that they don't need a security force of this size. >> another key factor to the progress in iraq was the

reintegration of more than 100,000. so far, reintegration of the taliban is proceeding. do you think reintegration will be critical? the size of the afghan national security force is correlated to the size of the ongoing insurgency or other extremist activity. >> that is a great question. you are correct, we have not talked that much about this so far, the afghans are focused on two elements to bring this insurgency to an end. one is reconciliation and the other is reintegration.

premised onk are promis the concept that you can kill your way out of an insurgency. there have to ultimately be a political solution. reintegration as part of it. i am told there are some 2500 former insurgents that are either processed or in process. it is an afghan process, of course. i think after incapacitate is a an issue here about how fast they can move. there is another element that is significant and that is the afghan local police initiative. it is not quite like the sons of iraq. if you remember, that program was a very group.

-- a varied group. some more insurgents and some or not. the aft and local police initiative focuses on individuals who want to stand up for their community and who are not part of the insurgency. i think their numbers are 6000 and i have been advised that we expect to be able to continue to expand that possibly to 10,000 by september. and the lessons learned category, the sons of iraq were never tied to the iraqi government. until quite late in the process. the prime minister made some undertakings to incorporate some into the security services and provide employment for others for the afghan local police have started out linked to the ministry of the interior. you've got all three of those in play.

all three afghan-supported afghan-lead, which i believe is important, clearly we would like to see the real integration process move more quickly. if confirmed, that is something that will have my focus because it can be a, as it was in iraq, it can be a very important component of a broader process. unlike iraq, the ultimate solution will come for a successful reconciliation process. we will see what the death of osama bin laden will have on taliban leadership attitudes and to what extent the linkage as personal rather than institutional. i don't think we know the answer to that yet. it will be an important question. >> thank you. >> i would ask our distinguished ranking member for a second round. >> i want to ask one question.

we can amplify this -- you can amplify this, ambassador crocker, with written responses. i wanted to ask you about a related question about how the american people view the mission and goals and how we define it. one way to analyze that not just for members of congress but for the american people is to have metrics and measurements and reporting that we have had. place there is probably a good debate about whether they are adequate. we have learned a lot in the conflict in iraq about how difficult that can be to measure and report. i think we have to have metrics like that in place. i want to get your assessment of where we are with that and how

you view that. this is in regard to accountability and having some reporting. as people analyze the policy and debate, they have some way to measure progress. >> that is an important point, mr. chairman. i think it is part of the accountability process. how do you measure progress? as you point out, that can be hard in certain areas. in other areas i think it is easier. in education, for example, we know how many afghan kids are in school. over 7 million, 2.5 million are girls.

as we consider our costs and our options, i would like to take a minute, with your permission, to comment on girls and women in afghanistan. one of the first thing usaid did when we reopen the embassy in january, 2002, was to start educational programs for girls. who were completely shut out of the educational system under the taliban. in the middle of january, 2002, unfreezing day, i took and senatebrighton. to a girls' school. we visited a first grade class whose ages range from 6-12. the 12-year-olds had become school-age when the taliban took over. i remember asking a 12-year-old

whether it bothered her to be in there with the lyall kids. she said i am so happy to have the chance for an education. i was touched at the time and i still am. as we consider our options, it is certainly my intention to see that there would be nothing in my recommendations and nothing in policy decisions over which i might have input over or control that would put at risk half the population of afghanistan, the girls and women, who still face some significant challenges but who are in school, in business, and in government. i am sorry for a slight digression but, again, it touches at metrics. these are things we can measure.

i am not far along into this to be able to give you large quantities of statistics. not everything is measurable that way. i take the point that that which sized soeasuredi metri let congress and have -- and the people have a sense of what is happening there. >> how do we make sure that women's rights are not traded away and for all of us who have watched what has happened in afghanistan, one of the biggest concerns, as i think about what happens after the united states leaves, is what happens to half of the population with women.

i very much appreciate your commitment to ensure that those rights are protected. >> senator coons? >> one last question that will take us back to the first point about pakistan and the disproportionate or significantly different investment we are making in prosecuting the war in afghanistan and try to sustain this uneven partnership, relationship or whatever it is with the people of pakistan. as a former ambassador to pakistan, wanted to ask your input on how you see the prospect of our ever be successful in persuading the pakistanis to change their relentless focus on india as a relentless -- as a threat to their country.

what initiatives you think we should be taking to engage in new delhi in helping real on the strategic calculus in pakistan? >> thank you, senator. i would imagine that my colleagues from legislative that you are saiy not the for pakistan so don't answer. the pakistanis have been engaged against militants on their soil and i have lost a very large number of forces fighting them. it is not like they are not doing anything.

the problems of pakistan for says. -- persists. since the death of osama bin laden, we have had a number of senior visitors who have engaged the pakistanis include the chairman as well as secretary clinton, admiral mullen, and marc grossman. they have made some statements and it will be important for them to follow through. with respect to india, i am pleased to see from my possible future perspective in afghanistan that the dialogue between the foreign secretary of the two nations has resumed. i think that is an important step. i hope they sustain that and they brought in bad. broaden that.

the degree to which india and pakistan start to see some capacity to work together, it is to the benefit of the region and to the benefit of us. that falls to the purview of others, particularly as it relates to india. >> thank you for your input and your willingness to take on this vital mission. >> ambassador crocker, i will be leaving. i will turn the gavel over to senator menendez. we're grateful for your service and thank you for your testimony today. with that, i will turn to senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, thank you for your service passed a new willingness to serve in the future. we had a good discussion when you came to my office. i want to pursue some of things we talked about at that time.

i know you don't determine or strategy -- war strategy but i wonder what your role will be as the ambassador in terms of information to the congress about where we are at. i am one of those who believe that we would be more successful in afghanistan by reducing our troop presence in the south and continuing support for institution-building in the north. it seems to me that a counter- terrorism strategy reverses a counter-insurgency strategy which is where we are, fighting in search is to give the government time to have the wherewithal to stand up for itself and defend itself and govern itself would maybe be a considerate policy if we had a partner, which in my view, we do not have a solid partner in this regard. so, that present policy has had

an enormous toll on american lives, on american treasure, and i don't think we have won the hearts and minds. do you believe we are making substantial progress in the south? i know we are clearing and holding that after that, that is not it sustainable for us to be able to stay. what happens in the follow-up? >> thank you, senator and thank you for the time you gave me in your office. that was very valuable to me in trying to get my mind around the big issue. s. we are successfully clearing and holding in the south and west. we are also going to be transitioning seven provinces and districts in the month of

july to afghan security control. i don't have the list right in front of me but some of those are in these areas, as i understand it. it will be an important step because that ultimately is our goal and their goal for the entire nation. they are assured that they can do this. what i understand from my briefing is that we are confident that they have the capabilities in these seven districts to do it. if successful, that will be a not bad start to the transition that we and they are committed to to cover the whole country. >> what role will you pledge -- will you play to win over passions in the south? -- to win over pashtuns in the

south? >> at this stage in the process, i cannot answer that with exec certainty. it will be part of a process of consultation with others who are involved in this matter. in particular, ambassador grossman is involved. that said, as the afghans move toward a concentrated reconciliation effort, i would certainly see april for the embassy -- see a role for the embassy in working closely as we already do pashtuns in the south. my position in iraq was basically that we would talk to anybody who would talk to us. we would not ask a lot of questions.

whether i can get away with this in afghanistan, i don't know. i do think it is important that we know what the southern pashtuns are thinking. we know what others are looking at, especially as a tricky reconciliation process moves forward. >> let me turn to another field. what is the continuing use of u.s. taxpayer dollars for an assistance mission? my understanding is that the president wants to shift from a military mission to aid civilian position and that mission is to help rebuild lives in institutions and create a functioning government. we have done this before with

more committed partners. from 2002-tumescent and, we have spent $19 billion -- from 2002- 2010, we have spent $19 billion. this is subject to endemic corruption. i know there is a report about to be released suggesting we have had only limited success, that this is huge attempt of nation building may not survive and american withdrawal. this is a real concern to me. is this a good use of united states taxpayer dollars? >> [inaudible] >> could you turn on your microphone? >> we have had some significant successes with our assistance. i understand the report touches on some of those. that was certainly include education.

before you came in, we were talking about the provision of basic health services. i can tell you that i am committed to ensuring that the assistance we provide makes an important positive difference and can be implemented and can be sustained. i would agree, personally, with the three basic conditions that i saw in the report which i have not had the chance to fully steadstudy. this should be achievable, and sustainable. administrator shaw and the

deputy secretary have responded on behalf of their respective offices. they are the ones to speak authoritatively on the matter. i can tell you that if i am confirmed, going forward, our assistance has to make a difference and it has to be sustainable. >> you said we had some successes. of $19ie i the scheme billion would a success. -- what is a success. ? >> in the area of education which was a priority, the success of getting over 7 million kids into school, 2.5 of those being girls. that would be a metric of success. >> if we put a dollar figure on that, what would it be?

>> i can get that for you. >> i would appreciate that. i consider that a success but i don't the cost $19 billion. we appreciate the audiences attendance but we are not subject to comment. s. my point here is that -- i will support your nomination, that is not the issue -- my point is that you will be in a role that is diplomacy and foreign policy and i hope you look at it as a fiduciary to the american taxpayer. right now, i do not believe that as a fiduciary from this side of the legislative process that we are being good fiduciaries to the american taxpayers. part of that is, do you believe that the karzai government is

doing what it needs to do to be an honest and effective and transparent partner with us? >> there are several elements to a very important question. i will start with the last. i noted in my statement that i got to kabul in january of 2000 to about 10 days after president karzai had been named by the conference as chairman of the afghan interim authority. i worked very closely with him during those early days. i believe he is committed to a unified, stable afghanistan. i look forward to renewing that relationship. i will certainly make every effort as the ambassador to

have a productive working relationship with the head of state to which i am accredited. have we had differences? are there things that we wish he would or would not have done? are there things he wishes we would or would not have done? of course there are. one key issue is corruption. for the sake of the state of afghanistan, the afghan government will have to do more. we wrestled with the same thing in iraq. you don't get positive change overnight. prime minister maliki in iraq expressed an awareness of the problem and incrementally, some steps were taken. we have seen president karzai make the same commitments. words do count but the account

for more. -- but deeds count for more. i would start from the assumption that we have partners in the afghan government. that is what i hear in my consultations. we have some affective gubernatorial appointments and the provinces an increasingly effective members of the karzai cabinet. that is a critical part of capacity building and transition. i would see that as a key responsibility to help them develop the capacity. >> i will just say that when i see the reports public and private about where our money has gone and where the corruption is that and when i see karzai talk about the united states as an occupying force,

have a real problems. s having american lives shed. my understanding is that for fy 02-10, we spent $172 million it -- on education. that is far from success. what is the united states position and your position on the efforts to alter the un's 1267 list of people associated with al qaeda and taliban tax i understand there would be two separate lists created. this separation will likely provide the afghan government with a much greater say over which taliban would be on the list and allow them to remove more than 100 people from the

450-person list that exists with access to the banking system. do you support that effort? that will decide who stays on the list and who gets off. are you concerned that potentially dangerous individuals can be removed from the list? >> this is one of many issues that i am not fully up to speed on. i am aware of it. the policy of the administration has been that for reconciliation to take place, insurgents, the taliban, have to renounce violence, break with al qaeda, and agree to respect the afghan constitution. i cannot speak for the administration on this matter because i don't know if they have a position. i would be concerned about individuals who have a record of

extremist violence against us and against the afghans. having freedom of movement and an ability to do whatever they want. i cannot be afforded on the matter. >> i look forward to pursuing that with you. i am concerned about where we are headed. thank you for your answers. >> thank you, senator menendez. thank you for what you do for america, ambassador crocker. your qualifications are respectable for this job. i don't envy what you are about to take on. i have been following this hearing electronically because i have had other things going on. let me just say that i share some of the skepticism -- that

is probably an understatement -- i share a lot of skepticism that has been expressed here this morning. this is a messy situation that is not getting any better. since i have been elected to the u.s. senate, people back and keep asking me what will happen and how will this end? what kind of progress is being made? military -- militarily, we have done well, i believe, but beyond that, this is very, very difficult articulate what our objectives are and what our goals are and how this is going to and with us achieving those. that is very difficult. to grasp, let alone to convey to the american people. i wish you well. the problems here are very, very

significant. i am glad that you are the one going because i think you are the right person to do this job but, again, i am very skeptical about how we will be able to end of this, thank you. >> thank you, senator. i am under no allusions of the difficulty of the challenge. if iraq was hard and it was hard, afghanistan in many respects is harder. all i can promise to you and the other members is -- if confirmed -- i will give you an honest assessment of what conditions and situations are. , what are achievable ways for, and what may not be achievable. that much i can certainly undertake to do. >> i appreciate that and i think

your observation regarding iraq and afghanistan - people try to compare the two and it is a comparison of apples and oranges. what we are trying to give to the afghan people and have worked at for 10 years and given them in blood, sweat, and tears, you really wonder whether they want what we are trying to give them. if they don't want what we're trying to give them, it will not work. that is where i am on this. thank you very much for your service. i wish you well. take care of yourself over there. thank you very much. >> with that, the record will remain open for 48 hours. i will ask the ambassador to respond to any questions as expeditiously as possible so we could move forward through the nomination. with that, this hearing is closed. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> went to the american people get a chance to speak? the afghan people have to govern themselves. iraq is an absolute disaster as a nation, we have led to the death of about 1 million iraqis. does that define a success? >> [inaudible] there is no possibility of protest in iraq. >> bush is the one who got into this. 10 years of fighting.

[inaudible] >> we destroyed the economy in iraq and afghanistan. room, please. the >> reporters asked about the nearly $19 billion in aid to afghanistan. the u.s. government has spent this over last 10 years. here is that part of the briefing. >> the senate foreign relations committee released a report overnight about the spending in afghanistan on programs for the state department and usaid in

particular. it was a bit awkward for ambassador crocker at his hearing today. the usaid's , said they are trying to overhaul the way they disburse money with a afghanistan, what more can the state department say about profound concerns that the senators have about what is going on there. they are looking at deciding if they approved a $3.2 billion portion -- apportionment for afghanistan in the coming year. >> i will try as best i can to address all the elements of the question. ambassador crocker was not uncomfortable in his confirmation hearing. he said it confirmed that he

will look at these issues more closely. he thinks the issues raised in the report -- he takes the issues raised in a report very seriously. he cited his concerns about the effect of corruption and would seek to address that if confirmed. the deputy secretary nyes as well as shaw did have a chance to review the report in advance. my understanding is that they did respond in the form of a letter to the committee. we are trying to see if we can make those letters available to you. they would constitute a detailed response to some of the concerns raised by the report. speaking more broadly, we welcome but to not endorse all the conclusions in the report. we believe the presumption

implied by "the washington post" article that little has been contributed and afghanistan has made no progress is frankly incorrect. we believe afghanistan has made major progress. as president obama said earlier this week, we broke the taliban momentum. we have trained and continued to train afghan forces and we are preparing to turn a corner in our efforts. clearly, civilian assistance represents a small percentage of the overall cost of our mission in afghanistan. it is an essential component of the national security strategy and afghanistan. as report recognizes, despite the operational challenges, we are seeing progress. >> do you contest the conclusion that once u.s. forces have pulled out in 2014 and by extension, there would be some sort of provision in the

civilian presence, that the impact on the afghan economy would be such a shock that it would go into a depression? it is just not robust enough right now to stand on its own two feet. >> obviously, development assistance is a key part of the integrated civilian and military plan for success in afghanistan. what is important to recognize is there will clearly be more afghan-led efforts in the milk -- on the military side as we go towards 20,014. -- 2014. on the civilian assistance side, we will continue to put in place programs that we believe are sustainable. usaid is addressing many of the issues raised in a report concerning sustainability and

oversight we have undertaken, we believe in the past years, some good efforts to change the way we do business. >> a senate hearing on c-span 3 this morning will cover the homeland security subcommittee who will be looking into allegations of corruption among border control agents for the head of the u.s. customs the border protection agency will testify. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. here on c-span, "washington journal" is next live with your phone calls. the senate, from marchant -- the senate confirmation hearing for leon panetta will be after that and a live senate hearing on what should be done with unused federal property. in about 45 minutes,