long-term fiscal -- and we need to -- there are two things that are obvious. number one, we have had a significant decrease in revenue in this country. you cannot look at the size of our deficit and say that revenue has nothing to do with it. at some point, that has to be on the table. the other part of it is entitlements. all on the table, social security, medicaid, medicare, insurance -- all of in. it is 55% of the budget. both of those things have to be on the table, entitlement and taxes. that is it for us this week. >> thank you. >> we just talked to congressman

adam smith, who is the top democrat on the armed services committee in the house. the president this week faced debate on libya policy, even after his secretary of state made an appeal asking members to decide where they were in this whole process. could you talk to me about the president's foreign policy and how he is doing with members of his own party and with republicans on capitol hill? >> i would say there are divisions. there are sort of unusual divisions and unusual alliances that have appeared over libya in particular. democrats ended up backing him up to a large degree on libya by voting down the resolution friday that would cut off funds for most of the operation. i thought that was interesting. but in afghanistan, there's a lot of contention over the president's withdrawal plan. they want the church brought

home. i did not see a lot of support backing of with the president was calling for. , not just in libya, but in afghanistan, defense spending. were seen as the setting aside the budget as sacrosanct. now you have a lot of republicans who are more concerned about financial pressures who are saying, we need to pull back, not just in libya, but afghanistan and iraq and our role in the world, to some degree. that is of the band has long repercussions in washington.

for a long time, as you know, president obama and other leaders have felt this pressure to stand up and be strong when it comes to military fears and foreign policy. the pressure has eased off. i think we saw that in obama's the decision to draw down more quickly than his military generals wanted in afghanistan. >> several of your questions were about the confirmation hearing this week. what did you find particularly interesting? >> general patraeus has this mythical presence on capitol hill. he does not get a lot of push back on his ideas. i thought it was interesting that the congressman tempered his reaction to the comments that patraeus made about the drawdown. his words are considered, to

some extent, law on a the military perspective. i think patraeus was trying to carve out a little bit of middle ground. >> the house is on board this week, but when they come back, we will have a big discussion about all of this under the big umbrella of the appropriations bill. what are some of the big issues you expect to be fought in that? let's emily, that is your corner. >> there are a number -- >> family, that is your corner. >> there are a number of issues. i think is part of their approach to show that they are bringing in new, open, transparent process on capitol hill. sort of a transition from the democrats that have had a very

tight rein on things. it will be lengthy. there will be a large number of amendments. we will see everything from libya to afghanistan be -- being attacked in terms of spending, but we will see a lot of progress in the way that they will cut back. it will run the gamut. >> what is the feeling at the pentagon about their new chief coming on board? >> i think the pentagon feels pretty good about their new chief, leon panetta. at the same time, there is some sense that their budget had grown for the last 10 years of uninterrupted. there is no question that president obama will make some cuts. -- thanks to for

both of you for being here. >> thank you. host: guest: -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama announced wednesday that 2000 u.s. troops in afghanistan would return home by the end of this year, and a total of 33,000 troops by the end of next summer. he also declared 2014 as the year the process in the transition will be complete and the afghanistan people will be responsible for their own security. this speech is just over 10 minutes.

what's good evening. nearly 10 years ago, -- >> good evening. nearly 10 years ago, america suffered the worst attack on our shores since pearl harbor. it was 9/11. it was an attack in which innocent men, women, and children were going about their daily lives. in the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al qaeda and routed the taliban in afghanistan. then our focus shifted. the second war was launched in iraq. we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there. by the time i took office, the war in afghanistan had entered its seventh year. but al qaeda said leaders had escaped into pakistan and were plotting attacks. the taliban had regrouped and

got on the offensive. without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al qaeda and a taliban taking over large parts of afghanistan. for this reason and one of the most -- in one of the most of goule decisions i have made as president, i made -- one of the most difficult the decisions i president, i were 33,000 additional troops in afghanistan to reverse the taliban's momentum and train afghan security forces to defend their own country. i also made it clear that our commitment would not be open- ended and that we would begin to draw down our forces this july. tonight, i can tell you that we are fulfilling our commitment. thanks to our extraordinary men and women in uniform, or civilian personnel, and our many

coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. as a result, starting next month will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from afghanistan by the end of this year. we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge by an ounce at west point. after this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming all at a steady pace as afghan security forces moved into the lead. our mission and will change from combat to support. by 2014, this process and transition will be complete. the afghan people will be responsible for their own security. we are starting the strata of from its position of strength. al qaeda is under more pressure than any time since 1911. we have taken out more than half of its leadership. and thanks to our intelligence professionals and special forces, we killed osama bin laden, the only leader that al

qaeda had ever known. this was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. one soldier some did of well. the message, he said, his "we do not forget. you will be held accountable no matter how long it takes." the information we recovered showed al qaeda had enormous strength. bin laden had been concerned that they would not affectively be able to replace the senior operatives that have been killed -- killed. al qaeda remains dangerous and we must be vigilant against attacks. but we have put them on a path to defeat and will not relent until the job is done. in afghanistan, we have encountered serious losses -- we have inflicted serious losses on the taliban. along with our search, our allies also increased their commitments, which helped

stabilize more of the country. security forces have grown by more than 100,000 troops. and in some is about these and provinces, we have already begun the transition to afghan people's authority. afghans are fighting and dying for their country. they are establishing local police forces, opening markets and schools, creating opportunities for women and girls. of course, huge challenges remain. this is the beginning, not the end, of harvard to wind down -- of our effort to wind down this war. we have to keep focused while we transition security to the afghan government. next may, in chicago, we will host our -- a meeting of our partners to help shape the transition.

as we strengthen the afghan government and security forces, america will join initiatives that reconcile the afghan people, including the taliban. our position on these talks is clear. they must be led by the afghan government and those who want to be a part of a peaceful afghanistan must break from al qaeda, abandoned by land, and abide by the afghan constitution. but in part of our -- in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made. the goals we seek is achievable and can be expressed simply. no safe haven in which al qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. we will not police its streets or patrol its loans indefinitely. that is the responsibility of the afghan government, which must step up its ability to

protect its people and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. what we can do and will do is build a partnership with the afghan people that endorsed, one that ensures them will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign afghan government. of course, our efforts must also address the terrorist safe havens in pakistan. no country is more in danger -- endangered by violent extremes that is why we have to work to secure a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. we will work with the pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism. there should be no doubt that as long as i am president, the u.s. will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us. they cannot delude us, nor

escape -- eluded us, norris gave the justice -- nor escape the just as they deserve. the cost of war has been paid by the nearly 4500 americans who have given their lives in iraq, and the over 1500 you have done so in afghanistan, men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they have fought for. thousands more have been wounded. some have lost limbs on the battlefield. and others peddle the demons that have followed them home. -- battle the demons that have followed them home. but tonight we take comfort in knowing that your of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. -- fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. as there will be dark days ahead in afghanistan, but light of the securities -- secure peace can

be seen in the distance. these wars will come to an end. already, this decade has caused many to question america's engagement ring on the world. someone have america retreat from our global response will these -- global responsibilities. others would have america over extended, confronting every evil abroad. we must chart a more center of course. like generations before, we must embrace america's singular role in the course of human events, but we must be as proud that -- but we must be pragmatic. we must be as strategic as we are resolute. when threatened, we must respond with force. but when that is targeted, we do not need to deploy large forces overseas. we do not have to choose between standing idly by or

acting on our own. instead, we must rally international action, which we are doing in libya. we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies and protecting the libyan people and giving them a chance to determine their own destiny. in all that we do, we must remember that what sets america apart is not solely our power, but that we are a nation that respects the rights of all our citizens and adheres to the rule of law. we extend our own prosperity by extending it to others. we stand of four empire, but for self-determination. -- we stand not for empire, but for self-determination. we will support these resolutions with the fidelity of our ideals, the power of unwaveringd with the

belief that all human beings deserve to live in freedom and dignity. above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in the opportunity for our citizens here at home. over the last decade we have spent $1 trillion on war in a time of hard economic debt and hard economic times. now we must invest in our greatest resource, our people. we must create new jobs and industries while living within our means. we must rebuild infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. and most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. our nation draws strength from our defenses. when our union is strong, no real is tuesday. notarizing is beyond our reach. -- no hill is too steep.

no horizon is beyond our reach. it is time to focus our efforts at home. we brought in for -- inspiration from our fellow americans who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. to our troops, veterans, and their families, i speak for all americans when we say -- what i say that we will keep the trust for you in providing you the care and opportunity that you deserve. i met some of these patriotic americans at fort campbell. a while back i spoke to the 101st airborne that has helped to turn the tide in afghanistan. standing in front of a model of bin laden's, doud, the navy seal who lead that effort paid tribute -- compounds, the navy seal who led the effort patriot to those who lost their lives. their memory will never be forgotten.

this officer, like so many imad on bases in baghdad and bagram and the walter reed in bethesda, spoke about how his unit worked together as one, depending on and to other and trust in one another. -- depending on each other entrusting one another. we are all a part of one american family. we have no disagreement and -- we have known that disagreement and division, but we are bound together by common creed and the conviction that america as a country can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. now, let's finish the work at hand. let's responsibly and these wars and reclaim the american team that is at the center of our story. with confidence in our cause, with phase -- faith in our fellow citizens, and hope in our

hearts, let's go about the work of extending this for america, for this generation and the next. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on thursday, secretary of state clinton testified about the president's decision to drop down troops in afghanistan. the secretary's opening remarks to the senate foreign relations committee are about 15 minutes.

>> it is a pleasure to be back here with you. as the president said last i, the u.s. is meeting its goals in afghanistan and pakistan. the civilian surge has bolstered the afghan and pakistani governments, economies, and civil societies and undercuts the whole of the insurgency. the diplomatic surge is supporting afghan-led efforts to reach a political solution that will chart a more secure future. all three surges, military, civilian, and diplomatic, are part of the division for transition and that nato enforced in lisbon last september and that president obama reaffirmed last night. as he said, afghans must take responsibility for their own future. today, i want to amplify on the president's statement and update

you specifically on our civilian efforts. and i also look forward to answering your questions about their road ahead. despite the progress, we have to stay focused on our mission. as the president said, we have to put al qaeda on a path to defeat. and we will not relent until the job is done. first, let me say a word about the military effort. last night, the president explained his plan to begin drawing down our forces next month and transitioning to laugh again responsibility. i will leave it to my colleagues from the defense department to discuss the -- the specifics. but the bottom line is that the president said we have broken the taliban's momentum. we do begin this drawdown from a position of strength. with respect to the civilian surge, we greatly appreciate the attention that this committee has devoted to it.

because if proving governments -- improving governance, creating economic of virginia, supporting society is vital to slip buying -- creating economic opportunity, supporting society is vital to supporting our goals there. this is january 12,009 we have expanded our presence of in the field nearly sixfold. these new civilians have changed the way we do business, focusing on the way we move in key industries and sectors. there should be no doubt about the results of our investment. despite a very difficult circumstances -- the very difficult to present to the you know alvery well. under the taliban, only 900,000 boys and no girls were enrolled

in schools. by 2010, 7.1 million students were enrolled and nearly 40% of them were girls. hundreds of thousands of farmers have been trained and equipped with new seats and other techniques. afghan women have used more than 100,000 micro finance loans. infant mortality is down 22%. what do these numbers and others that i could quote could tell us -- that i could " tell us? first, despite the challenges that remain, like this better for afghanistan -- life is better for many in afghanistan. more people in every research analysis that we are pretty to say they see progress in their streets, in their schools, in their fields. and we remain committed to fighting corruption and strengthening the rule of law in a very challenging environment.

the aim of the civilian surge was to give afghanistan -- afghanis a stake in their countries future. it was non, nor was it ever, designed to solve all of afghanistan's challenges. considering the obstacles we face, we are, and should be, encouraged by what we have accomplished. most importantly, the civilian surge helped to enhance our military and political objectives. let me offer one example. last november, u.s. aid began construction -- began funding the various construction projects there. it provided jobs and water to thousands of workers and farmers. in march, just a few months ago, insurgents demanded that the people abandon the project and support the spring offensive.

the people refused. why? because they ask themselves, should we trade new opportunities for a better life for more violence and chaos? frustrated, the insurgents threatened to attack the project. the local sheriff's mobilized and send back a clear message. we want this work to continue. interfere, and you will become our enemy. and the insurgents backed down. we have now reached the height of the civilian surge. any effort of this size and scope will face considerable logistical challenges. we have worked hard in the last two and half years to strengthen oversight and improve overall effectiveness. we have learned many lessons and we are applying them. the efforts of our civilians on the ground working in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable continue to be extraordinary. looking ahead as the transition proceed, we are shifting our efforts from short-term stabilization projects largely

as part of the military strategy to longer-term sustainable development. it will focus on spurring growth and integrating afghanistan into south central asia pose the economy. our third surge is the diplomatic surge. it is the afghan-led political process that aims to shatter the alliance between the taliban and al qaeda, and the insurgency, and help produce more stability. -- end of the insurgency, and help produce more stability we are beginning work that will provide a long-term framework for long-term bilateral cooperation and made to a corporation. it will bolster afghanistan and regional confidence that afghanistan will not become a safe haven for terrorists and a

region of competing interests. as the president said last night, this will ensure that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and support and afghan government. it will also provide a backdrop for reconciliation with insurgents. they must abandon al qaeda and violence and they must support the constitution of afghanistan, including its protections of women. in the last four months, this afghan-led process had gained momentum. 27 provincial peace councils have been established in afghanistan, and the afghan heidi's council has stepped up its efforts to engage -- the high peace council has stepped up its efforts to engage women. let me say something that you will not be surprised to say, but i say it not because of my

personal feelings, but because of strategic assessment. including women in this process is not just the right thing to do, but the smart and strategic thing to do as well. any potential for peace will be subverted if women or ethnic minorities are marginalized or silence. the united states will not abandon our values for support a political process that undoes the social progress that has been made in the past decade. we believe that a political solution that meets these conditions is possible. the u.s. has a broad range of contacts across many levels in afghanistan and the region that we are leveraging to support this effort, including preliminary out reached to members of the taliban. this is not a pleasant process, but a necessary one. history tells us that economic

opportunity and inclusiveness in the process is the best way to end an insurgency. with bin laden dedic and al qaeda oppose the leadership under enormous pressure, the choice facing the taliban is clear. be part of afghanistan's future or face unrelenting assault. they cannot escape this choice. they have met twice and will convene again next week. at the same time, we are in gauging the region around a common vision of an independent, a -- engaging the region around a common vision of an independent, stable afghanistan. we have included all the neighbors including russia and even iran. the united nations security council voted on friday unanimously to support reconciliation by splitting its

sanctions on al qaeda and the taliban into two separate lists, underscoring that the door is open for the insurgents to abandon the terrorists and choose a different path. we welcome these steps. a key diplomatic priority for the united states and, indeed, the land of the entire effort is closing the gap between kabul and islamabad. pakistan must be part of this process. earlier this month, the two countries launched a joint commission and held substantive talks at the highest levels. also very significant was the full implementation on june 12 of the transit trade agreement, which will create new economic opportunity on both sides of the line in the foundation for broader vision of regional integration and economic cooperation. this agreement started being negotiated in the early-1960's.

it therefore took decades, including great, heroic efforts by the late richard holbrooke and his team. the trucks are now rolling across the border. i recently visited pakistan and had, as we say in diplo-speak, very candid discussions with its leaders. united states has clear expectations of this relationship. the united states will never tolerate a safe haven for those who kill americans. we are looking to pakistan to take concrete actions on the buckles we share, defeating violent extremism -- on the goals we share, defeating violent extremism, ending the conflict in afghanistan, and securing a stable, democratic, prosperous future. these are obvious the tough questions to ask of the pakistanis, and there are many

causes for frustration, but we should not overlook the positive steps of just recent weeks since may 2. counter-terrorism cooperation continues, and several very key extremists have been killed or captured. as i told the pakistanis, america cannot and should not try to sell pakistan boss problems. they have to eventually do that -- to solve pakistan's problems. they have to eventually do that themselves. we cannot walk away, either. pakistan is a nuclear-armed state sitting at a crossroads of the strategic region, and we have seen this movie move for. we have seen the cost of disengaging from the region -- this movie before. we have seen the cost of disengaging from the region. we cannot make the same mistakes

of 1989. we have the resources to continue -- it is important that we have the resources to continue implementing our strategy. we want to have an overseas operations contingencies account that separate normal operating costs per extraordinary wartime expenses. i will hasten to say that we are painfully aware of today's fiscal realities. i know it is tempting to peel off the civilian and diplomatic elements of our strategy. they obviously make fewer headlines. people do not know as much about them. it would be a terrible mistake. i am not saying that just for myself, but as our commanders on the ground will tell you. there and work hand in hand. you cannot cut or limit 1 -- they corp. hand-in-hand. you cannot cut one or limit 1

and expect the others to succeed. , an entire year of civilian assistance in afghanistan costs americans the same amount as 10 days of military operations. mr. chairman, senator lugar, members, i thank you for this opportunity to discuss our strategy. there have been a lot of developments in the last month. i feel that what we're doing is working, but it is obviously important that we ask the hard questions. i look forward to working with you to improve the strategy and to work together to implement it. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, a house armed services committee meeting. we'll hear from the joint chiefs of staff chairman admiral mike mullen, who says he supports the

plan, even though it was more aggressive than he was prepared to support. he is joined by the defense undersecretary michele flournoy. this is two hours, five minutes. every witness before this committee has testified that this strategy is beginning to bear fruit by seizing the

momentum from the taliban. many members have been to afghanistan and seen as progress for themselves. districts that were once taliban stronghold are now being contested. once contentious regions are being handed over to afghan security forces. the afghan national army and police are growing in numbers and beginning develop -- to develop the ability to defend their country. we should guard these gains jealously. i'm deeply concerned about the aggressive troop withdrawals proposed by president obama. the president's decision could jeopardize the hard-won gains are troops and allies have made over the past 18 months. they could jeopardize the safety of remaining forces. this announcement also puts at risk a negotiated settlement with reconcilable elements of the taliban who will now believe they can wait out the departure of u.s. forces and returned to

their strongholds. i hope to hear more today about the details underpinning the president's plan, that we have allowed enough time to achieve success, that this drawdown is military, not political, and that it does not put our remaining forces at risk. i am interested not only in the number of forces the president plans to redeploy, but the location and composition of those forces. i am concerned that we will withdraw combat forces be the -- combat forces before they are able to cement recent gains. they may not ever witnessed similar progress. with the taliban stumbling, we need a strategy designed to knock the enemy to the map, not give them a breather. i wish i had heard the president forcibly renew his commitment to winning in afghanistan. we need our commander in chief to remind the american people why this side must be one end to

reinsure -- this fight must be won and to reassure our military that their efforts are not in campaign. instead, i heard a campaign speech, short on details, confusing multiple operation theaters with little success -- of our city for success in afghanistan. i look forward to hearing how this plan will forward our national security interests. i yield not to the ranking member. thank you to our witnesses to be here -- i yield now to the ranking member. thank you to our witnesses for being here. >> i think everyone agrees on two prod points -- one, we want our troops home as soon as points --- two one, we want our troops home as soon as possible.

the second thing we want is to make sure that afghanistan does not descend back into chaos as it did in the late-1980's and early-1990's. we understand the threat that comes from afghanistan in chaos. the safe havens that will become available to al-qaeda and taliban and other allies that clearly threaten us. the challenge before us is how do we balance these things. i think the president has struck a very reasonable balance on this plan. it is important to point out that, even with the drawdown, we will have vastly more troops in afghanistan and we had when president obama took office -- nearly twice as many u.s. troops will be there. it is a relatively modest drawdown over the next year and a half. the other point i hope folks will understand, yes, there is a risk in the us leaving, but i will always be the case. if we had 150 troops there and

we choose to draw them out -- 150,000 troops there and, 10 years from now, we chose to draw them out, the risk would still be there. i applaud the president for and the size and the risk involved in staying too long, and not just -- the president for emphasizing the risk involved in staying too long, to the very security of afghanistan itself. on a daily basis, we hear complaints from an afghan people -- from the afghan people about civilian deaths, about having 150,000 u.s. and nato troops in the country. it is not a pleasant experience. it does not make you want to support your government to know that they are reliant on 150,000 foreign troops. particularly 150,000 western ry.ops in the muslim countrie

you have to strike a balance. if we were to stay for as long as we felt like it, that would undermine our national security interests. a balance must be struck. i think the president struck at each -- struck that balance in his speech last night. we may be staying too long into next year. i understand why all those who put together this decision have a difficult balance to strike. i look forward to hearing of our witnesses about how that plan is going to play out over the next year-and-a-half and beyond. there is no question that afghanistan and pakistan are central to our national security interests. there is no question that we all wish they were not. it is a very difficult part of the world. we have to manage a plan to try to protect our national security interests. i applaud the president for taking steps in that direction. i look forward to hearing further collaboration on those

plans. >> thank you. i want to thank our witnesses for being here today. i know this is very short notice. it is very timely. i appreciate you making the extraordinary effort to get statements out and to be here today. we are fortunate -- fortunate to have the undersecretary of defense for policy and admiral mike mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we were talking of the day. he made the comment that people kind of figure -- have made comments to him that, well, you're just going to coast through the next so many months? he said, yes, like i have coasted to the last four months. -- through the last four months. people were probably not in the about egypt, yemen, libya, all the different things that have happened. again, i thank you for your many years of service and for making

the extraordinary effort to be with us here today. we will listen now to mr. flournoy -- miss flournoy -- excuse me, admiral mullen. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the president's decisions regarding the beginning of our drawdown only afghanistan. our continued transfer of responsibilities to the afghan national security forces. i support the president's decisions, as do generals mattis and petraeus. we offered our views freely and without hesitation and they were heard. the commander in chief presided over an inclusive and comprehensive discussion about what to do next. i am grateful for that. i can tell you that, foremost on

everyone's mind throughout the discussion, was preserving the success of our troops and civilian counterparts have achieved thus far. back when the strategy was establish in december, 2009, we believe it would be about now, this summer, before we could determine whether or not we had it right, whether the resources were enough and the counterinsurgency focus was a bridge. now we know we did have it right. this strategy is working. al qaeda is on their heels. the taliban in the south has been checked. we have made extraordinary progress against the mission we have been assigned. we are in the position to begin a response will transition out of afghanistan -- responsible transition out of afghanistan. but we will withdraw 10,000 troops by the end of this year and complete the withdrawal of 23,000 surge troops by the end of next summer. general petraeus and his successor will be given the

abilities inside these deadlines to determine the pace of this withdrawal and the rearrangement of remaining forces inside the country. there is no jumping ship here. quite the contrary. we will have disposed of a great number of forces, but we will have -- i am comfortable that conditions on the ground will dominate, as they have dominated, future decisions about our force posture in afghanistan. let me be candid, however. no commander wants to sacrifice fighting power in the middle of a war. no decision to demand that sacrifice is ever without risk. this is particularly true in a counterinsurgency, where success is achieved not solely by technological prowess or conventional superiority, but by the wit and wisdom of our people as they pursue terrorists and engage local populace on a daily basis. in a counterinsurgency,

firepower is manpower. i do not intend to discuss this is a fixed of the private advice i rendered with respect to these decisions -- the specifics of the private advice i rendered with respect to these decisions. the president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than i was originally prepared to except -- accept. it is not necessarily the best course. only the president can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take. i believe he has done so. the truth is. we would have run other kinds of risks by keeping more forces in afghanistan longer. we would have made it easier for the karzai administration to increase their dependency on us. we would have denied the afghan security forces the opportunity to further a exercise that ability and to lead. we would have signaled to our partners that the taliban still possesses enough strength to

warrant the full measure of our presence. they do not. we would have continued to limit our own freedom of action there and in other places around the world. the president's decisions allow us to reset our forces more quickly as well as to reduce the not inconsiderable cost of deploying those forces. we have earned this opportunity. though not without risk, it is also not without rewards. we will take the risk and we will reap the rewards. the war in afghanistan will enter a new phase. we will continue to fight it. we will continue to need the assistance, persistence, and expertise of our allies and partners. the president said it well last night. new challenges remain -- huge challenges remain. this is the beginning, not the end of winding down the war.

no one think there will not be more challenges as we continue to accomplish the mission there. we know the progress we have made, though considerable, could still be reversed without our constant leadership, the contributions of our partners in the regional nations, and a more concerted effort by the afghan government to address corruption in their ranks and deliver basic goods and services to their people. the strategy remains the right one. this transition and the concurrent focus on developing the afghan national security forces was always part of that strategy. in fact, if you consider the continued growth of the ansf, the tall man could now face more combined force -- the taliban could now face more combined force. going forward, we know we need to support an afghan political process that includes reconciliation with the taliban

who break with al qaeda, renounce violence, and except -- accept the afghan constitution. we know we need to continue building a strategic partnership with afghanistan, based on mutual friendship. our troop presence will diminish, as it should, but the partnership between our nations will and must endure. that is ultimately the way we will win in afghanistan, not by how much we do, but by how much they do for themselves and their country, not by how much our respective soldiers by, but by how much our statesmen lead. thank you, mr. chairman. i stand ready to take your questions. democrats is very much. -- >> thank you very much. miss flournoy. >> thank you for inviting us to update you on the situation. president obama announced the

surge of 30,000 troops in 2009, with the clear objective of seizing the initiative from the taliban and reversing the momentum of the campaign and the ground. the president specified that the surge would not be open-ended and that he would begin to reduce u.s. surge forces beginning in july, 2011. true to his word, president obama announced to the american people that the u.s. is beginning a deliberate, responsible drawdown of our search forces in afghanistan -- forces in afghanistan. secretary gates believes that this decision provides our commanders with the right mix of flexibility, resources, and time to continue building on our significant progress on the ground.

even after the recovery of the surge forces, about 33,000 troops, we will still have 68,000 u.s. service members in afghanistan. that is more than twice the number as when president obama took office. clearly, this is not a rush to the exit's that will jeopardize our security gains. at the end of summer, 2012, when all of the surge forces are out, there will be more afghan and coalition forces in the fight then there are today. that is because, by the time we complete our drawdown, we anticipate that the afghan national security forces will have added another 55,000-plus members, not including the afghan local police. the growth in the quantity and quality of the afghan national security forces is one of the critical conditions that is enabling the drawdown of the

u.s. surged forces. more broadly, our strategy in afghanistan is working as designed. the momentum has shifted to the coalition in the -- coalition and afghan forces. we have degraded the taliban and possibilities and a cheap cigar -- achieved security gains. the security gains are enabling keep political initiatives to make progress. we have begun the transition process that will ultimately put afghans in the lead for security nationwide by 2014. we're beginning to see reintegration and reconciliation processes gain traction. we are in discussions with the afghans about a strategic partnership that will signal our enduring commitment to the afghan people and to regional peace and stability. it together, these initiatives promise of future afghanistan

that is stable, peaceful, and secure. i want and decided that this announcement in no way marks a change in american policy or strategy in afghanistan. it is wholly consistent with the goals of president obama and our allies, agreed to at lisbon last year. there we committed to the gradual transfer of security leadership to the afghans by the end of 2014 and to an enduring commitment to a security partnership with afghanistan to ensure that we never again repeat the mistakes of simply abandoned that nation to its fate and risking the reestablishment of occupies -- of al-qaeda safe havens there. our progress has been a financial -- has been substantial, but there are significant challenges remaining. we will be confronted by an enemy that will try to regain the momentum and a territory

that it has lost to afghan and coalition forces. that enemy will also face an afghan population that is increasingly experience in the benefits of security in self governance. those benefits will only become clearer as we begin the transition to full afghan security responsibility in selected areas. those communities will provide us with useful lessons on security and governance, as well as a potential model for other parts of the country. finally, let me emphasize how crucial it is for us to maintain a continuing role of our coalition partners in afghanistan. 48 countries with some 40,000 troops alongside us. the spartan nations have made significant contributions and significant sacrifices. even as we recognize the progress that we and our partners have made towards our shared goal of destroying terrorist safe havens, we must

sustain the partnership to ensure that we ultimately leave behind and afghanistan that will never again serve as a base for terrorist attacks against the united states or our allies. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith, distinguished members of the committee. that concludes my remarks. we look forward to your questions. thank you very much. -- >> thank you very much. there is not a single member of congress who does not want our troops to come home as soon as possible. personally, i believe the objective of transitioning to an afghan lead on security within three years is both desirable and achievable objective. the last visit i made, compared to the one before, i saw significant progress, areas that we were not able to go into before, we were able to go and walk down the streets without body armor. we opened a school while we were there. i'd think we have made

significant gains -- i think we have made significant gains. it will enable our forces to come home. i'm concerned that the drawdown plan announced by the president last night will significant the undermine our ability to responsibly enact this transition. i am concerned that the gains we have made in the south -- we have been in more of a holding pattern than in the north and east. the plan was, i thought, to move more of those forces, as we solidified the gains in the south, to move them north and east. i'm concerned that this drawdown may not as do all we could in that area. admiral mullen, based on your best professional tudjman -- judgment, how many of the forces will be combat forces? is the president's plan to redeploy all 33,000 surge forces

by next summer aggressive? what regional commands will these forces be drawn from? do they put our recent security gains at risk? do they risk the security and safety of our remaining forces? >> let me talk about, and broadly, the approach. we have made significant gains over the course of the last 18 months. particularly in the south. we are in a phase now -- we're moving into a phase where the afghan -- afghans have the lead. that was where we were with respect to the most recent discussions and meetings with respect to what to do next.

the south, consciously, has been the main effort. it is that focus that has allowed us to achieve the gains we have, not insignificant when we debated this in 2009, was the very small chance that an awful lot of people gave us in terms of building the afghan national security forces because of the literacy challenge, because we did not have a training infrastructure, because we did not have noncommissioned officer leaders, etcetera. the extraordinary progress which has been made with respect to setting up the structure and fielding forces. it is over 120,000 forces that have been trained and fielded, some 35,000 are in training this week. by the end of next year, we will have afghan units that are

manned at the end ceo level to the 85% level across the board -- that the -- at the nco level to the 85% level across the board. these gains can only be made -- be made irreversible by the afghan people. that is where this is headed. we have made great progress with respect to that. secondary everett was the east. i would not -- the secondary effort was the east. i would not describe it as a holding action at all. what david petraeus and others have done is reconfigure forces to deal with the challenges of that very rugged territory. in fact, it is not -- the plan is not to take a lot of our forces and put them in the east. as david petraeus says, it

provides the jet stream between the safe havens in pakistan for the haqqani network in particular in getting to kabul. in kabul, roughly 20% of the afghan population has been secured. you want to keep it that way with respect to the capital of that country. what general petraeus has done over the course of the last year is reconfigure those forces, look at an adjustment in the strategy on the ground to layer the forces in the ways of that the jet stream is really cut off and it is made much more to build on the enemy. there are lyric forces from the border right through to kabul -- laird -- layered forces from the border right through to kabul.

it is clearly challenging. there was never an intent to do exactly in the east what we've done in the south with respect to our forces. i think that all lies within this overall strategic approach. all of us knew going into this that the surge of forces were going to come out next year at some point. the discussion about exactly when it is obvious the relevant, but, in terms of numbers of months and getting through the fighting season, the end of september is almost all the way through the fighting season. there'll be those who argue that october is a pretty tough month. what we have is the vast majority of our forces, for the next two fighting seasons, not unlike what we said in 2009 -- we put 10,000 marines and the helmand -- in a moment in 2009. my position was that we did not

have a good handle on what was going on. we probably have to change of strategy. i believe these decisions and our strategy give us time to understand how good the afghan security forces are going to be, how well the government actually stands up. karzai dealsidenct with corruption. is there political space that this buys where you can start reconciliation and -- move it from where it is right now, where you can continue reintegration. we have a couple thousand former taliban who are now being reintegrated. in essence, for my perspective, we're talking about margins. a lot of progress, good strategy, continued focus in that direction. i think i would be remiss if i

said publicly where these forces are going to come from. i am not anxious to give up anything to the enemy in that regard. i would be happy to go through that with you, but, most importantly, i think where the horses come from next year will depend on what happens this year. that will be conditions-based. general petraeus and general rodriguez and their reliefs will make the decision given the mission they have been given to carry out and, obviously, the direction from the president. >> thank you. would you term the redeployment for this summer "aggressive"? >> actually, as you know, we all have to choose our words very significant -- very carefully.

i used the word significant earlier. as i said in my opening statement, it was more aggressive and has more risk than i was originally prepared -- then i recommended. that said, in totality, it is within the ability to sustain the mission, focus on the objectives, and execute. >> i did not mean to pinpoint locations. i was referring -- i am glad that you answer that the way you did. what i was talking about -- will they be coming from the fighting forces? >> our combat forces is a term that has been broadened dramatically in these wars. i haven't asked as recently as a couple of days ago about will

they be the enablers -- i have been asked as recently as a couple of days ago, will they be the enablers? the threat is a three and a 60- degree threat often times -- 360 degree threat often times. clearly, a commander on the ground will keep as much fighting power, whatever that means, given the situation for as long as he can. i'm sure that general petraeus, and, if confirmed, general allan, will proceed in that direction. >> thank you. mr. smith. >> causes, mr. chairman. you mentioned that the number of -- thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned the number of afghan security forces who have been trained. i know it needs a significant

improvement, as does the police force. if we have that anymore afghan troops available, that much more afghan security, how does that figure in and help us with the drawdown. -- drawdown? how capable are they? how responsible and reliable are they? i do not know what the figure is on the police force. our plan is to drawdown a total of 10,000 u.s. forces. it seems that we're still in pretty good shape. the nato forces are going to be keeping roughly the same amount -- can you confirm that and comment on how the afghan forces had into the mix? >> let me go to the second question first. we were in consultation and contact with our nato allies over time. they were very much focused on what the united states was going to do and any decisions that

they were going to make were clearly going to be informed by this decision that the president has made. that said, and i think it is worthy of focusing on -- part of what the president focused on was lisbon summit. the heads of state and countries who are committed to this transition. everything coming into this, as far as i know, the allies were very much with us. they got the specifics decisions. i do not know what they are. as the secretary pointed out, it is important for them to stay in this. not lost on me over the totality is that 48 countries have committed, at forces here over time, which is a huge statement, in an of itself.

-- in and of itself. i believe the number is about 128,000 twin the army and police. -- between the army and police. there was no train infrastructure. there is nothing set up except you recruited somebody on a friday and monday, they were on the streets in a unit that was not well lead and did not have senior leadership or mid grade leadership and had not had any training. we have set up what we call 12 branch schools. the number is between 25,000 or 35,000. they have been in training for months. it was a matter of setting up infrastructure. we spoke to trainers with respect to where we need to be. there is now a system of

training which has produced a much more capable individual and what we see as a much more people fighting force in the field. they are leading, in some cases. we are partnering with them. that will increase exponentially. i am not naive. they have challenges. they have not done this before. we do not expect this to be magical. over the terms of the progress that has been made, it really has been enormous. we expect to continue on that page and actually have eight picks up. they will get better and be more and more in the lead. >> improvement of training i do not think can be overstated. it is one thing to say, we're going to pick someone up, turn them into soldiers, and send them out. the surge was not just in our troops. -- the last time i

was there, i had never seen so much activity. we had a comprehensive effort to improve the government's. i will conclude by saying that, if we have 120,000 afghan security forces, i do not think it is fair to say that drawing down 10,000 u.s. troops this year and 23 doesn't -- 23,000 next year significant the reduces our effort. we are making progress. we appreciate your leadership. it was a tough fight. we have seen a lot of improvement. it is to be commended. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for your service and your testimony. i led a group to china to talk about energy.

biting you are on a group with me. we were stunned when the chinese began a discussion of energy by talking about post-oil. oil is finite. of course there will be a post- oil world. the focus of the next election, which is never more than two years away, the next quarterly reports, which is always less than three months away -- i have heard none of our leadership mention that there will be a post-oil world. this is the dominant factor in the chinese planning. clearly people in that part of the world have a different perspective of time than we do. i have heard that afghan taliban are much -- what may seem to

americans as a very long time, three years, to meet in my planning, it is little more than doubling of the night. in just three years, there will be out of there. for the next three years, i will continue recruiting and reconstituting so that i am going to be ready when they're gone. i know they are working very hard to improve the security forces and the police. they are trying to make the mayor of kabul look like the president of afghanistan. these gains are all very fragile and reversible. the forces i will hold in reserve from this fight will be easily reversed. do wyou think we have the abiliy -- the ability to see the world

-- >> we see the world a lot more clearly than we used to. i am sure you can appreciate that. because of the fights and the sacrifices. we also see that world to the afghan people's eyes. we are in some many villages, districts. i just disagree that the gains are going to be easily reversed. in fact, i see a stream of intelligence routinely in disarray. at the leadership level, many of whom live in pakistan, as well as in the fields. >> sir, i was just repeating what i am told by general petraeus and others. the testimony read into the congressional record.

they say the gains are fragile and reversible. i am simply repeating that. >> i have said that as well. you have also said they are easily reversible. i disagree that that is the case. they only become irreversible if we get the afghan security forces in charge of their own destiny. that is the goal of the course of the next three years. four years ago, they virtually have no afghan security forces. certainly no effective forces. that is the challenge. the past home. we all know that. we see that through their eyes as well as through the taliban's buys. we had -- taliban's eyes. they had a really bad year this year. they will have another really bad year next year. it is for them to decide how long they want to sit on the side. i certainly understand that.

it is more than just a blink of the eye, even in their eyes. they have been fighting this for many years. they are also tired. i see that retaining. i come -- i see that routinely. i, at it from a different position. i understand what you are saying, but we have seen great progress. there is an opportunity to succeed against the objectives we have, which have been limited and it to a point where afghanistan is in charge -- and get to a point where afghanistan is in charge of their destiny. we have a large relationship with that country which puts them in a position to be more stable and peaceful than the have been in decades. thank you. >> thank you both for being here this morning.

i think, at least from my perspective, and this is after having a precision with the former ambassador -- a conversation with the four embassador about a region in general and the challenges we may face a given the decision -- may face given the decision that the president made. we were there as part of the trip with the chairman. one of the anecdotes that sticks out to my mind speaks -- some people categorize the advances as fragile. we were told about one of the soldiers that had been trained and was intent on being deployed. what was significant was that his idea was, once he completed his term, was to go back to his

village and work on the next generation, in the context of literacy. we all know that as one of the big challenges we have faced, the rate of illiteracy in the the general population. given the decision that has now been made in terms of starting the drawdown, one of the expectations that we have is that the civilian leadership will set the direction and that the afghani national security forces are going to provide the security. my question for both of you, it is the civilian leadership at the point to where they can provide -- that oversight, that

direction -- where are we and how are we to ensuring that both involve -- evolve at the same time for some are we are very troubled by the amount of corruption that exists -- where are we and how are we ensuring that both evolve at the same time? we are very troubled by the amount of corruption that exists. we are being told that, even once this is accomplished, for the ansf, it will take somewhere between $6,000,000,000.- 589932685 dollars per year to sustain them -- $6 billion and $8 billion per year to sustain them. we do not have the expectation that they will have that kind of income.

where's that money coming from? how much and for how long are we on the hook for either $6 billion or $8 billion, or even more if you take into account the civilian government as well. >> thank you. we're certainly investing in developing afghan governments and institutions as well as the ansf. the greatest progress we're seeing so far has really been from the bottom up, starting at the local and district level, moving to the provinces. i would say that something like 75% now of the district and provincial officials that are in place are now married-based appointments. these are capable people -- merit-based appointments. these are capable people who are qualified. most afghans have their most direct experience with their government. that is the good news. i think when you move to the national level, in terms of

ministries that can provide basic services and an accountable justice system -- this is a work in progress. there are still many challenges we have to work through, but we have partners as with each of the major afghan ministries, working with each of them to develop and to go after conception -- corruption. we share your concern, the president shares your concern. we are currently working with the afghans to scrub our long- term model for the ansf, to better understand what will the needs of that force really be, how can we bring down the costs and do things in a way that gets us into a more sustainable range.

>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you said in your statement that the commanders have flexibility in side of the deadlines, which tells me there is no flexibility to extend the headlines. you also said in your statement that the president's decision was more aggressive than your originally prepared to accept new toll may -- to accept. i guess the first question that comes to my mind is, is there a military reason to have demanded withdrawal in september rather than in november or december. -- december?

>> [unintelligible] [unintelligible] i would reemphasize that the commander on the ground has the

flexibility to move forces where and when -- [unintelligible] >> as you referenced, there are other people who are concerned about the military effects of this. i am trying to focus on the military aspects. and looking at today's -- i am looking at today's "new york times." it quotes that the ground commander who is now affiliated with the center for new american security said that the 10,000 by december is more than the military wanted, but doable. putting a september, 2012 expiration tag on the surge raises real concerns.

that is the middle of the fighting season. >> [unintelligible] i know that [unintelligible] the focus from -- military leadership of rodriguez, petraeus, myself, is [unintelligible] we were focused on the military -- again, it increases the risk, but not substantially. we will be focused on logistics. [unintelligible] we have to meet the deadline, but it will not divert the main effots.

yo-- efforts. you and i differ on that. >> some of my colleagues are focused on the stability operations. the key determinant is manpower. we're augmenting special forces with conventional forces. there are plans to expand to a bunch more villages. if the people are not there, obviously that cannot happen. does this decision put at risk what seems to be one of the most promising things going on in afghanistan to allow them to stand up and provide for their security? >> [unintelligible] they have been enormously successful. [unintelligible]

>> thank you. >> thank you. miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both. i have a question from three different aspects, all three of which i think are very important for us to leave afghanistan and not have to return. as you probably already know, i have been one of those people who have been saying let's get out of this. you have been before us many times. so had secretary gates and others. i've not really seemed to get from any of you or from general petraeus or the others what is the real and game and what it really looks like other than "stability -- end game and what it really looks like, other than

"stability" and "the afghan people able to do it on their own." i think it involves the leadership of the country and a strong afghan army and police force, whatever you want to call it. my first question is when did we start training the afghan -- what year did we start training the afghan army and police? secondly, how many have gone through our training or nato boss training or our allies' -- nato's training or are allie-- our allies' training? >> the exact year would be hard for me to pin down, but there has been a training effort almost as long as we have been there. my own personal experience is that it was well underway

although under-resourced in 2006 and 2007. >> who has gone through the training program that we have had? >> about 300,000. >> so, currently, according to the information you gave that we have in front of us, we have 305,000 total target end strength by the end of this year for the ansf. so, we have trained 300,000 and we sitll h -- still have 300,000 and nobody has walked away like they did in iraq? you are saying we have 100% retention? >> no. we do have retention problems.

>> i would like to get that number when you have the chance. >> yes, ma'am. >> my second question comes to the whole issue of a corrupt government. i start from the standpoint that the first time i met president karzai, told him i thought -- i was reading in "newsweek" article that called him the mayor of kabul. in my last visit there, his own parliamentarians said a type of election where he won a second term should never have happened -- should never happen again in that country -- someone of his own party. they do not believe that was a good election. what are we doing about leadership? what have we done to cultivate leadership? who are we identifying? are we leaving it up to the

correct people to take advantage of their own country, as they currently are doing? we're working of the district, provincial, and national level to replace corrupt and incompetent leadership -- or that the afghans replace them. i think we're 75% of the way they're at the district and provincial level. i think you are starting to see president karzai make the connection between the need to fight corruption to be able to gain and sustain legitimacy in the government in the eyes of the people.

one of the things he has begun to do with our support and encouragement is start to make the replacements. dismissing a number of officers who he found to be correct. a lot of the work we're doing on the police which is historically one of the most corrupt institutions in the country. we're leaving and returning those units with a totally -- revetting and retraining those units with a totally different perspective. those are current efforts to deal with the corruption problem. we certainly have a long way to go. we're pressing our afghan partners every day on this issue. >> i would like to add to the record that when all is said and done, we will find a corrupt government is what brought our efforts to knaught there.

>> admiral, i would like to pick up on the line of questioning gan when hergerry be said the president's decisions were more aggressive than you were originally prepared to accept. >> risk to the overall mission. i think it has increased risks across the board. it is manageable risk. we know where we stand. >> i am taking your words that it is more risk. i noticed from the website the state you are the principal military adviser to the president and present the range of device and opinions you proceed along with individual comments from other members of the joint staff. what is your will be for us?

is it to do the same thing or support the decisions of the administration? >> i think the website says joint chiefs. it is to provide my assessment and advice, views, based on the questions i get. >> is the same role for the president and for us? >> no. >> you appeared before the senate and house. can you tell us one time in your testimony you have not supported the decision the administration has made? >> i have worked for two presidents and support them. >> when we come here, we know we will have support of the decision made. my question comes back to this.

in may of this year, you said you think we will have a better idea of where to go in afghanistan towards the end of the year. on may 30, he said it is a difficult fighting season and it will be a tough year. in june, i think you said we should not let up on the gas for the next month. -- few months. what has changed between the to thel, acceptable risk troops and mission and today? have you reassess your position? were you wrong when you thought it was not acceptable? is there something that has changed on the ground militarily that makes it a more acceptable risk today? >> i have said for many months this is going to beat a very

difficult year. it was a difficult year of the taliban last year. it continues to be a difficult year with respect to the taliban this year. my recommendations and the risk out there is very focused on achieving those objectives. well there is more risk, and do not consider it significant to while there is more risk, i do not consider it significant. -- while there is more risk, i do not consider it significant to preventing us from achieving our objectives. >> were there any commanders on the ground that recommended this particular action that the president is taking? >> i will not talk about individual recommendations. >> i will close with this. it astounds me that when we had don't ask, don't tell, you were willing to come before the committee unsolicited and were

willing to state your personal opinion. when we are talking about potential risks to the troops, if you are not willing to say what those individual commanders are willing to say or your personal recommendations. with that, i yield back. >> admiral mullen, is an honor to be in the process with someone whose integrity is as unimpeachable as yours. we thank you for that. madam secretary, thank you for your terrific contributions. i think you have succinctly stated our purpose in afghanistan, that we leave behind in afghanistan that will never again served as a base for terrorist attacks on the united states and our allies. i have always thought that al qaeda was the parasite and the

taliban was the host in afghanistan. our military mission has been focused on destroying the parasite in either weakening the host or making the host unwilling to become the host for the parasite. admiral mullen says we need to support an afghan political process that includes reconciliation with the taliban to break from al qaeda. i think that this whys and understandable. with that framework of what we're trying to accomplish, it is my understanding that when the administration took office, we had about 34,000 troops in afghanistan. the surge built that up to 90,000. -- 98,000. when the withdrawal plan is completed, we will be at 68,000. is that correct? >> correct.

>> at present, there are 47,000 troops from allied countries in country. what do we know about the plans of allies to withdraw those? how many and when? >> in discussions we have had, i think they really haven't been together come out together principle. there's a very strong sense of resolve. -- i think we have and in together and out to get their principal. there is a very strong sense of resolve. some allies are thinking about bringing down their contributions. >> in the context of security for afghanistan, the target number of forces is 305,000. as of april, we read at 286,000. public reports indicate that by about three to one ratio of those units were deemed to be effective as opposed to

depended. let me ask you a question that is not rhetorical. given the strengthening of the forces, the presence of allied troops that we do not expect to drop much, what will the mission of the 60,000 remaining americans be -- 68,000 remaining americans be? >> i think they are there to continue the implementation of the strategy on the road to a successful transition which will be completed at the end of 2014. we expect the afghans will be fully in the lead across the country. we are on the glide slope toward the lisbon goal. the drawdown is consistent with that. the strategy and mission will keep aiming for the call. -- goal. >> in terms reid will understand, what will these 68,000 troops be doing in the

country? what will their mission thbe? >> it will be to sustain the transition. this is a rock-solid principle from iraq. is the partnership for peace. what we see in iraq today and what we have seen throughout the shift in iraq's of our mission to the shift side is the enormity of the impact of partnership. that is where we are now focused with the afghan security forces. in two or three years from now, the ratio will be much better than now. that will be a significant part of the main effort. that does not mean we will not have forces involved in combat to continue the gains. >> when the day comes when the afghan forces are at the optimal

point in can control and defend their own country, will be appropriate troop level be then? >> it will be dramatically reduced, clearly. the model is still iraq. that is being worked on now in the strategic partnership approach between afghanistan and the united states. what it means long term in terms of the u.s. but. , i just do not know. >> thank you again for your testimony and integrity. >> thank you both for being here today. admiral, i appreciate your testimony in bringing up the extraordinary progress of the military in afghanistan. i am so grateful for your reference to winning in afghanistan. the american people need to know the progress is being made and we can win. madam secretary, i appreciate

you referencing how important is that we do win and are successful in afghanistan. i wish the american people knew the level of achievement such as the security forces. you have provided the information stay. at the end of the year, in the last three years, we will have doubled the number of afghan police and army personnel up to three and 5000 trained personnel -- 305,000 trained personnel. i have the privilege of visiting my former national guard unit as they were treating the afghan security forces. i do not think they get the credit. our militaries or there's -- for the professionalism been created in the country. -- our military or theirs -- for the professionalism been created in the country.

the president did not reference any conditions on the ground that would justify withdrawing troops. every witness has previously testified that any withdrawal would be conditions-based. what specific conditions on the ground justify withdrawing 10,000 troops by december? >> we are literally starving transition in seven districts next month. -- starting transition in seven districts next month. the process -- there was the lisbon agreement. this is the beginning of that specifically. the conditions on the ground in those provinces support the transition. that is the approach. the other transition provinces will be tied to violence levels and the ability of the afghan security forces.

we get a lot of credit on the military side for the gains. there have been significant gains on the diplomatic side. we have surged dramatically on the diplomatic side. civilians have also made a big difference. in the various provinces or districts, we will transition these as conditions allow. the numbers and dates, any movement were changes that will be associated with where the troops come from are going to be conditions-based. there is no question about that. the president has given us that possibility. >> what are the future conditions anticipated to merit the removal of 23,000 additional troops? >> the improvement of security

conditions. the most representative example is in the south. we have enabled this. we have allies fighting in the north and west. the north is turning. it is better than it was. a year ago, there were grave predictions about losing the north because of what was going on there. we talked earlier today about the challenges in the east. there are challenges. general petraeus has a strategy that i have seen and believe in in terms of being able to create the kinds of conditions where we transition there as well. we are committed to not transitioning until is ready. we're working our way through this with the afghan security forces who have dramatically improved in size and quality. that does mean we do not have retention and attrition problems. in the police force, they're much better.

on the attrition side, we exceed our objectives. attrition is lower than it needs to be to sustain the force. >> as decisions are made in terms of troop withdrawal, is the fact being considered on the morale of the extremists? are we giving them false hope they may prevail and that we do not have resolved? >> i do not think we're giving them any comfort. if i look out several years, i will control less territory and have less support from the population. i will face more forces in the field. more of them will be afghans who will be there for a long time. i will have less access to financing. i will have more internal defection and vision. any way you slice it, things are getting worse for them and not

better. >> we will not abandon our allies? >> absolutely not. >> thank you. mrs. davis? >> thank you both for being here. admiral mullen, i know you will give your extraordinary attention to the issues as you have to all of your tenure. i appreciate your leadership and service. we had a hearing yesterday. the comment was made that the numbers are probably less important than how our troops are utilized or which troops would be leaving and staying. can you break that down in terms of support and combat troops and training troops? when we think about the afghan

forces, how will they be sustained? when we think about the afghan forces, how are they going to be sustained financially in the future and how we envision our help and support to them as we move forward? >> with respect to the afghan security forces in the bill associated with that, i think president karzai and his people recognize that the current level of $7 billion a year, it is not sustainable. there is a lot of work going on on both sides to figure out what is sustainable and will be needed. including a view that they will need more in 2013 and 2014. i do not know the answer to that. everyone recognizes that the current level from a financial standpoint is not sustainable. solutions have to be taken with respect to a way forward there.

what was the first part? i am sorry. >> the way that the remaining troops -- of course, we are talking 68,000 -- support troops versus combat troops and training? >> were i a commander on the ground, i would be focused on the combat and training troops first, keeping them as long as we possibly could. i do not discount the need for the kind of support troops, if you will. i include the first group, the enablers. george petraeus and general rodriguez will have to continue -- will have to determine the specifics. on the 23,000, i think knowing exactly where they will come from -- it is far too soon to know that. that will be conditions based. conditions will change between now and when they have to focus on executing that. in the near term, general petraeus and general rodriguez

have some expectation. obviously there will be at which all over the course of this year. specifically what that might entail. they have done a lot of that work. i have not seen yet, although they will certainly come in in the near future. >> thank you. i want to pile up on the -- follow up on the reconciliation issue. if we look around for success, i think a lot of that is defined by the number of young women that are in school. i have had a chance to visit at those schools in the number of trips we have taken to visit with our troops, but also to engage with women in villages as well as in leadership. those women were here in the capital last week. what role are we really playing to make sure that it is not just a lot of rhetoric about the fact that they are important to the development of a civil

society there? how are we moving forward to be certain that their voices or a meaningful voice in this process? at what point would we consider that the reconciliation is not working or moving forward and what role with that play as we continue to look at troop withdrawal? >> i think secretary clinton and many other members of the administration have consistently raised the issue of female participation in both the reintegration process and also the larger reconciliation process. we have raised that with the afghans. we continue to press the point. i think you see a gradual expansion of women involved in the peace council, for example. involvement in community-based oversight efforts that are emerging. when we talk about the key

criteria and we talk about respecting the afghan constitution, the key element is respect for minority and women's rights. that has been a key plank in our policy for the get go. it is something we continue to try to translate into concrete improvements with our afghan partners. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you both. admiral mullen, i want to go back to a topic that i think goes to the heart of what we see in the conflict of afghanistan, which is the issue of opium production and the drugs that are fueling and funding the taliban and other insurgent activities. frequently when we had these

hearings, i hold up this chart. it is a congressional research service chart that shows the opium production that has occurred during our time period and historically in afghanistan. in the four years of 2006 through 2009, opium production almost doubled. that is the time we saw all we needed to go in with the surge. opium production. -- there were historical levels of opium production. i use this chart but with president karzai and general petraeus to raise the issue that we need to do more to lower the opium production and the narcotics trade. these funds directly to find the taliban. they also go to find the issues of corruption. general petraeus was here last

time i held up this chart. he sent me a new bar chart. the new chart shows that in 2010 there was a 48% decrease as a result of our counter narcotics actions. there has been a 341% increase in our nationwide drug seizures in afghanistan. this is clearly the result of the activities of increased focus. with the reduction in troops, my concern is we go back to a time when we may again see a surge in narcotics. what assurances can you give us that with the lower number of troops that we will be able to maintain a counter-narcotics activity? >> we will continue to press on this issue just showing the charts, you look at the levels over the years and, in many ways, it is a way of life that is not going to go away quickly. there have been considerable

improvements. we continue to keep pressure on that. obviously, it comes principally from helmand. the landscapes and the dynamics are changing in helmand. by no means is it gone. the long-term goal is obviously to produce a better way to provide for one's family than what has happened today. i think it actually happens over the long term based on the security environment and having profitable crops that are able to do that, but i do not think that is going to mean that we are going to dry it out overnight. a critical focus here on the taliban is where they get their finances from as it is for any terrorist organization. over the years this has varied. i have seen many estimates as to how much money they actually

get from it, but it is substantial. we need to continue to focus on that as well. there is a near-term peace here, but there is a long-term peace. from an overall strategy standpoint, might view would be that we would have the conditions in the south, helmand in particular, where they cannot sustain that kind of production long term. >> i yield the rest of my time. >> thank you. a question on regards to conditions-based -- the ultimate reduction in violence and development of civil society -- if in fact violence increases and we are unable to promote a civil society, will the president change his course were is the timeline for which all more important than conditions? >> i think that is for the president to decide.

what i said earlier, mr. wilson, and i go back to mid- 2009 -- my view was that this was not working within 18 to 24 months, we need to reassess our strategy. from the standpoint of the next 18 to 24 months, given the transition -- and it is not just include the military sites. the issues of corruption, the issues of governance, the issues of pakistan -- those are significant, inherent risk in this overall strategy. certainly from my point of view, after a period of time, if it is not working, a reassessment is in order, but that is not for me to decide. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, admiral mullen i thank you for your service. it is not easy to do your job. the hardest part is the patients you have to demonstrate.

i appreciate your forbearance. one of the most important factors you know is the pakistan reaction. i assume that the pakistan situation was taken into account when this decision was made. >> it was. >> what is that reaction? >> do you need the pakistan reaction where pakistan itself? -- do you mean the pakistan reaction or pakistan itself? >> pakistan's reaction. >> i actually have not gotten it yet. i spoke to my pakastani counterpart yesterday. we agreed to talk in the near future after he is able to sort of absorb it. from the standpoint of help -- how pakistan views the future, they see a stable, peaceful afghanistan as the goal they too would like to see as a result of this overall strategy. they live there.

seeing is believing. over time, exactly how they view this will be determined on how this works, i think. i also think they are clearly going through a very difficult time right now from a strategic standpoint. i and many others believe, including the president, that we have to sustain this relationship as difficult as it is. this is a country that has a significant terrorist problem. it is a country whose economy is very weak. it is a country with nuclear weapons that is in a very dangerous and strategically important part of the world. i think not just the united states, but the regional countries need to continue to focus on this so that stability

is something that is the output of all that we do there, not just instability. the continued downward trend is dangerous for all of us with respect to pakistan, afghanistan, and the region at large. >> it takes a great deal of patience and expertise to deal with folks like that. my constituents do not usually realize that pakistan has more people than russia, for example. >> they are projected to have over 200,000 million in the next 20 or 30 years. they will be the fourth or fifth largest nuclear power if you consider weapons. it is a country i think we have to continue to engage with and be frank with. at the same time, i think we are paying the price in afghanistan and pakistan for walking away in 1989. that is a model that runs in my head. 20 years from now to ever is sitting here or sitting in your

seat, it is much more dangerous than it is right now. that is what i imagine 20 years down the road. >> increasingly pakistan has itself been the victim of terrorist attacks. they have felt the wrath of the taliban and the other groups. >> they have lost tens of thousands. they have lost specifically over 3000 of their military. they have had tens of thousands were did. they sacrificed greatly for their own country. sometimes that sacrificed gets lost. they have some enormous challenges. they have faced them and will continue to face them. i think we need to help them, not hurt them. >> as you say, they are a reality we will have to deal with and we might as well face up to that and not push the problem to the side and ignore it. a general wrote a book recently

called "the wrong war." he said one of the chief problems is karzai has been unwilling to let us police the mountains and valleys and terminate folks across those treacherous border regions. is he mistaken? is this something we need to demand of president karzai? >> i go back to what general petraeus and general rodriguez did. general petraeus along with general rodriguez and general campbell, who basically ran the campaign in the east for the last year to refocus it, to my writ from the border of pakistan and kabul, and to pull forces out of this very remote places which none of us thought were strategically significant. this layer approach to ensure

that we could protect the capital and deal with the hakani and make it difficult on their network. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> admiral, you are here at an interesting time. secretary, you have been back year month after month. i just want to say thank you for your service. i knew we do not see eye to eye, but you are out front and doing what you think is in the best interest of the nation. i have not heard anybody talk about our strategy. i have no idea what the troop numbers are supposed to be. i am not a military planner, but i know what our troops are capable of. i know that higher numbers are better for a counter insurgency

operation. we could make afghanistan at the san diego. -- into san diego. it would be a nice place to go fly fishing and sheep punting at. i have not heard any talk of changes in strategy to go along with a change in troop numbers. how come? >> the short answer is the strategy has not changed. >> we are at the global and of end of the numbers. i do not want to get wrapped up on in the numbers game. >> mcchrystal was talking about troops two or three years ago. it has changed dramatically on the ground since then. clearly it is something we look at all the time. it is interesting in the overall numbers. i spent a lot of time looking at who is there and who is making a difference and who is not. we have a culture of putting a

lot of numbers in. historically we have. we have learned a lot with respect to that. in a meeting yesterday we talked about what we learned with respect to iraq. we have access forces in iraq -- excess forces in iraq because we removing them so fast. we take those lessons into account as we look at how we do this. despite the pressure on numbers, that also forced us to not adjust our strategy, but look at how we focus this, prioritize, and still achieve success. you talk about the military. it is an unbelievably innovative, creative, capable military that we have. we talk about more risk. it has not put me anywhere close to getting this done. at some point in time, if it is not working, we will have to adjust the strategy. the strategy is still is a counterinsurgency focus, properly resources -- we could

probably get into a debate about that. if it is not working in a year or two, my recommendation would be that it needs to be reassessed. >> we probably have a different interpretation of counterinsurgency. it could be where you have bill its security operations, which are working very well. -- village security operations working well. those are working. some things are not working. you do not think there is any need -- you're telling me there is no need for looking at the strategy as we drop down into the tens of thousands? >> it goes to how we are going to handle the east. the east is going to not be held by u.s. forces.

it will be denied across the border as well as held by afghan forces. you lose all the gains you have in the south. the intent for the transition is to hold an transition to afghan security forces. that is going to be the challenge. i am not here to say that is a done deal because it is not. but that is the strategy. we see it as executable. no one has said that is not the case. is it going to be hard? you bet it is going to be hard. >> if you go back to the original campaign objectives laid out in the west point speech, reverse the taliban's of momentum, denied them access to population centers, if disrupt them in areas outside of that, degrade them, build the capacity in selected areas. as we do that --

>> we are doing all that. quite correct. but as we do that, that success enables a shift of the effort more towards the afghans. it allows us to thin out -- we have always anticipated that with success, the strategy would require fewer resources on the coalition side and more of the afghan side. that is the path we are on. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral and undersecretary, thank you for your service. you have worked long and hard on an extraordinary difficult challenge. it is much appreciated. i want to just confirm -- i think i heard you say, admiral mullen, a moment ago that the mission remains a counterinsurgency mission.

is that correct? >> that is correct. the strategy is a counterinsurgency strategy. >> thank you. that involves all that was said just a few minutes ago. in other words, nation-building is very much a part of this. >> from my perspective, it is not very much a part of this. it is a counterinsurgency strategy focused on a limited objectives, which is what it has been. it is what the president talked about in his speech in 2009. >> the notion of counterterrorism, that is to focus on terrorists wherever they happen to be around the world, seems to be secondary to this mission in afghanistan. >> i think it is not secondary at all. it is integral. i have spoken about that before. that is also how it is being executed. i just do not separate the two.

it is part of its. >> if i could just add, if you look at the region at large and look at the progress we have made in terms of focusing pressure on al qaeda at senior leadership, we view the osama bin laden rate as the latest example. the pressurecontinues. we looked at it globally. it is an intensification of our focus on counter-terrorism. that is alongside the complementary counterinsurgency campaign in afghanistan. >> are all of the taliban and the same and they had the same goal? -- are all of the taliban the same and do they have the same goal? >> they are not all the same. this is a divorce, symbiotic -- diverse, symbiotic network of groups that assist one another, that rely on one another, that do have overlapping, but sometimes distinct bills. goals.

>> some would describe afghanistan as a five or six sided civil war. you agree or disagree with that? >> i would disagree with that. i think what is happening right now in afghanistan is really the emergence of a nation from 30 years of war. and the rejection of the taliban by the population. with that, the reduction of the threat to us because, as the population rejects that movement and as they build their own national capacity, afghanistan is less and less likely to become a safe haven for al qaeda and attacks against the united states and its allies. >> this border area that we have obviously focused on -- allocate it receives the focus -- i have -- al qaeda receives the focus -- i have lost terrorist organizations -- i have watched terrorist organizations merged over the last three or four years merged

with each other, increase their horizons in terms of their objectives. the local outfit in eastern pakistan focused on india,it is now in the west and has transnational aspirations. we see the terrorist organizations. they are different, but in support of each other. this is the epicenter of terrorism in the world. that is one of the reasons that focus on both afghanistan and pakistan is so important. >> what is the cost of the strategy that you describe to us today? >> if you look at the costs over time, what we do see happening is that those costs actually coming down.

>> let's be very specific. surely you have figured out what the cost of your strategy is. >> for 2011, the cost for afghanistan was $43 billion. the request for afghanistan. >> we are running at about $10 billion a month. the 2011 request was for one under $17 billion. .- $117 billion the bill is coming out about $30 billion to $40 billion per year based on the strategy. >> less than $120 billion for 2012. it is about a $40 billion declined. that is from 2011 to 2012. >> would you please give us those numbers? thank you very much.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, undersecretary, thank you for your service and dedication to this country. counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency are not absolutes. it is really more of a continuing. um.continue how would you gauge the current strategy? are we shifting a little bit more to add more counter- terrorism elements as we draw down forces, or how would you state that, admiral mullen? >> again, i think where we are a year from now will be determined on how it goes this year. we are heavily focused on both as we speak. the effort inside the counterinsurgency strategy is significant. general petraeus ask for and got more forces to do that. will there be a different ballots a year from now?

-- and will there be a different balance a year from now? probably. how much? i think it is hard to say. what forces and the commander on the ground recommends taken out next year will be determined by what happens this year. we are not even halfway through this fighting season. it is difficult to say exactly how it is going to look a year from now. >> admiral mullen, i think you stated, "in a counterinsurgency, far power equals manpower." -- firepower is manpower." what does that mean? >> you have to have people out there engaged in the whole idea. the whole idea is to protect the people, the afghan people. it goes back to the success of the buildup of the afghan security forces. totor said it's the best focus on and protect the people, in this case the afghan people.

what is important is this goes back to the success of the afghans to search the forces. in the end, it is the protection of the people. the security of the people. the army, for sure, the police, absolutely. there will be more people focusing on this because of the build of the forces. it is the totality of manpower. it is an enormously successful program with the vso's and afghan police. we will continue to build that. >> in the lisbon conference, i believe the policy decision coming out about was that we would transfer operational control to afghan security forces by the end of 2014.

can you be more specific as to what that will look like? will we still have some boots on the ground in support of the afghan security forces? >> the model is iraq. we will continue to have forces there. the lisbon commitment is to have afghans in the lead throughout the country in every single district by the end of 2014. that is where we are heading. we will provide as much advice and assistance as necessary. they are on a pretty good sloped right now in terms of the sentence to be able to do this, the afghan security forces. >> mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> my questions flow along the lines of what mr. wilson brought up earlier and mrs. davis, talking about the drawdown been determined by conditions on the ground, the movement towards the afghan security forces, the afghan national police, being able to take over security. my concern comes from the future of this operation and an economic level. the afghan security forces are taking over more geography, but are we creating a situation where we have created such a large afghan army that the afghan economy will not be able to support that?

rystal balsas we will be drawing down, what is the dollar amount that the afghan economy will have to generate? how much of the u.s. support will still be there in a financial sense? >> that is something we're looking at in great detail now. when the insurgency and the level of threat is degraded, how big of an army and police force do you need? it may be smaller than what we have currently planned. they may be experiencing their own search now. maybe they will settle at a lower level. we are working hard with the afghan government on revenue generation. it may be increasing quarter revenues, growing their economy, gaining from their

strategic minerals and mining resources. ultimately, we do have to get this on a more sustainable footing. it has to cost less than currently anticipated. we are working through that with the afghans. we do believe we can get there. it is going to be a substantial assistance effort. afghanistan is going to require international development assistance for many years. it will remain one of the poorest countries in the world for quite some time. >> the support from this committee for what our military personnel are doing is second to none. the sides were fighting, their counselors and educators. they're doing more than probably any military has had to do. the support is very strong. it seems we have developed a

model that is not sustainable. if you look forward to the shrinking of the security forces, in this country we call them layoffs. that means people are not working. with the economy, the delta is so large. we are setting ourselves up for many decades of support to maintain this or something that is not functional down the road. i yield back. >> mr. young? >> thank you for being here today. i appreciate your testimony. i want our troops to come home as soon as possible. i am not yet comfortable that the decisions related to the

drawdown or our force posture in afghanistan are going to be primarily based upon conditions on the ground. i hope to get comfortable with that. one thing that is important as we consider our future posture is the conditions on the ground in pakistan. there are extremist elements of the taliban to preside over there in a safer haven than afghanistan. e.u. acknowledged -- you have acknowledged the situation in pakistan is a risk to our overall strategy. these extremists are laying in wait in pakistan. they threaten to create the

destabilizing conditions that justify our presence in afghanistan. that is regardless of our progress. my first question laying the groundwork is whether you are prepared to say conditions on the ground in pakistan have improved to such an extent that the threat to the government in afghanistan and to the people in afghanistan by the extremists in pakistan has diminished to a significant degree? >> it is important to remember that the core goal of the president's strategy was to disrupt and defeat the al qaeda. a credit is very much on the ropes now. i do not say it is over. -- al qaeda is very much on the

ropes now. i do not say it is over. they would still like to kill as many of us as they can. they have aspirational goals to do that. second is to make sure afghanistan cannot turn into fertile ground for al qaeda or another organization that would threaten us long term. that is what the afghanistan piece of this is. >> we are trying to create conditions where afghanistan cannot become a safe haven. it seems that pakistan is a relatively safer haven already. >> targeting leaders in the other organizations, the afghan taliban, with our pakistan the partners, which is problematic, is a part of it. what the strategy is intended to do is buy space so there can be

political reconciliation across the board. that is not insignificant. >> it seems we are approaching pakistan with a very limited sort of counter-terrorist strategy when we're implementing a counterinsurgency strategy over in afghanistan. >> i think our approach with pakistan has been to engage them, a partner with them, support them in training so they can deal with the threat that is internal and external to them. that is a difficult strategy and execution because of the history, lack of trust, we left them for. >> in your estimation, we can never send in enough american troops to afghanistan to create conditions where the extremists

across the border in pakistan would not present a threat to the afghans. >> it has got to change in pakistan. >> all this depends on the pakistanis playing ball. >> there is great risk in the strategy tied to pakistan. there has been from the beginning. >> is our remaining presence on the ground a hedge against or deterrent to future efforts by these militants in pakistan to use regions of the country as an unfettered a training ground for their activities or to get control of pakistan's nuclear arsenal through violent means? >> the pakistanis are very concerned about and unstable afghanistan that could threaten them with a much larger force. that is why getting to some

level of stability and peaceful outcome is so important. i believe if you can, pakistan will come to that. >> we should in no way factor in the fact of our troops are playing a productive role in perhaps deterring those extremists from taking control of the nuclear arsenal? >> am i allowed to answer that? >> if we could get the question on the record and the answer for the committee, i would appreciate it. >> there rico. >-- there we go. admiral mullen, thank you for being here. i appreciate your service to the country and all you are doing to

keep america safe. admiral, i am concerned we are reaching a point of diminishing returns in afghanistan. the war is costing billions of dollars, thousands of lives lost or wounded. last tuesday, i went out to walter reed to visit some of our wounded soldiers there. about hearing yesterday bu evolving terrorist threats. an expert noted that al qaeda is no longer exists in afghanistan in any reasonable number. we were deployed to afghanistan to eliminate al qaeda and deny them a source of terrorist activity. our troops have clearly performed the mission incredibly well. al qaeda is gone from afghanistan. afghanistan.