in fact, john boehner is like coolhand luke. i think it is probably just a misunderstanding. they are probably just coming they are probably just coming back in that day. you know, the comments from the white house, i didn't read this a lot. i saw a story on it. they said it was probably something that boehner wasn't really directly involved in. i just don't know. it is important that they show one another respect, and look, we're not -- it's not like we have some box of chocolates out here. we have a lot of partisan politics out here. have you to work at it. what gets hard is when you try to work at it and people keep saying go away or drop dead. you know what? you know what? don't take no for an answer. the country will be better off. i know ohio will be better off if i can find out a way to include more people, we're going to get there. i believe overtime we will get there in this state, and i hope it becomes contagious. >> governor john kaich joining

us from columbus, thank you for being here on c-span's news makers programs. >> thank you. it is nice to do something other than a soundbite. >> and we'll continue the discussion. he seemed to get animated over the discussion of bipartisanship. has the atmosphere here been poisonous? >> it seems as though this week we have contributed to that thought. the white house is coming out saying they gave zero thought to this issue. it is obvious there is upset from the white house perspective in how this all went down. there was no problem. then the idea that maybe boehner had gotten feedback from other republicans that caused this is still unclear. it dominated the news cycle.

it doesn't help anyone. although some people say it might help boehner a little bit, because it makes the president look as though he got a hit. >> did kaich make news today? >> i'm not sure he made news. he showed -- i think he's clearly worried about the issue on collective bargaining. even though he said this is not a referendum on his administration. it really is. if he loses, it knocks the legs ow out from under him. i think he's terribly concerned about that. but john's style is, you know, don't worry, be happy. and to talk about the way they should get along in washington, john is working across party lines. when he was -- let's face it. the fight in ohio over collective bargaining, that is a

tough fight. tough fight. >> it is a precursor to 2012. chicago is a must-win state for any republican candidate. >> governor christy talked about getting in. i thought it was interesting governor kaich didn't completely rule out the idea that the president could win ohio again. i believe in the last couple months, the jobs numbers there have deteriorated after stablizing. the president takes every opportunity he can to go out there and visit factories and try to make the case that he's helping. >> what about the polls for kaich in ohio? >> they are not great right now, but they shouldn't be great because he's had a controversial

going over, and the economy is not in great shape. it is not a catastrophe, but john kaich will live and die with the economy. >> jack torry and kate brower, thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> next a preview of many c-span 's feature "the contenders." presidential candidates who have ran and lost but changed history. after that a discussion on security in afghanistan. then co-chairman of the 9/11 commission discusses the recommendations in their report.

>> machiavellian has become an adjective. not to many people would call themselves machiavellian. >> his name is synonymous with selfish scheming and the selfish pursuit of political power. tonight miles unger suggests that his theories may have been a response to the political corruption around him. tonight at 8:00 p.m. on "q & a."

>> when you decided the list for "the contenders" what was your intention? >> to give mirn americans a view of political history. it has been observed the winners write the history books. there is some truth to that. but that means we are deprived of -- it is like the dark side of the moon.

there is say whole story line. and even more, on the buy graphic cal level, there are 14 people in this series, many of whom viewers have never heard of. they will be fascinating and surprising. >> do you have anyone in mind who might have been the most important kpt contender in history? >> i think some modern buying fers saying losing candidates in the last 20 years, people even said george wallace was the most important loser. i don't think that at all. i have to go back to the 19th century and pick up with henry clay. he ran three times, and that's one of the things that interests one of the things that interests me about these folks. they sure are recidavits. they keep at it, and it gives me

they keep at it, and it gives me nomanes.6wi- i do believe he's one of these 14, that had he been elected, he would have made a difference if he were elected president of the country. >> which of these contenders would you have liked to covered? >> william jennings-bryant. >> why? >> jean spoke of recidivists. he's a lifer. he could go to sanquint quentin. there are echoes of him even

today. i was at a republican event. the republican establishment, actually, in new orleans, and all of a sudden this chant breaks out "end the fed!" breaks out "end the fed!" "end the fed!" well that's ron paul's people. they are in the house. that is the modern version. not only are they recidivists, but their thieves echo through the years. it is like they finally get their way, even if they lose. they redefine defeat. i mean, one of the things you find as you go through this list is over and over again, there are people that lose an election, and in the immediate sense may be written off as a loser. but in some cases, may be catalysts for political changes that will transform the country. you think of al smith in 1928. a loss to herbert hoover but

a loss to herbert hoover but paved the way for franklin roosevelt. and the urban immigrant labor rer coalition that sustained the democratic party up to and through john f. kennedy. or even more, barry goldwater who lost overwhelmingly in 1964 to johnson. people said conserve tism -- conservatism is dead, but i think goldwater started a movement that has yet to diminish. >> would any of these people have won had they had access to television? >> blane certainly would have done well. >> when did he run? >> 1884. >> against? >> grover cleveland. >> and that's a funny american election that all americans

should know about. it is the one in which grover cleveland has this child that's cleveland has this child that's born out of wedlock, so we have this wonderful couplet, mom, where is pa? "going to the white house" ha-ha -ha. there were compromising letters involving females or sexual affairs. but in this case it is something to do with his taking bribes and working for the railroads. so the american on one level is faced with this, who are you going to vote for? this personal sin or the kind of public sin of james bryant. >> to turn your question around, though, a common complaint of modern candidates also ran who

are not elected is that they would preferred to have run before there was television. in the 1984 campaign i was covering alan crantston. he was the senate minority leader for a while. he didn't do well. he finished sixth. reagan actually got more write-in votes in the written primary. he had to quit. we were on the airport going back to los angeles, going to l.a. x. and i'm sitting beside him and he said, abraham lincoln couldn't be elected today. i was taking notes and i stopped taking notes. he said you want to write that down? i said, i think i'll do you a favor and not put that in my story. he said why? what he was getting at was gary hart was this pretty face and he

couldn't break through to be the guy that runs against walter mondale. i said well lincoln was the greatest writer we have had in that office since jenniferson. if -- since jefferson. if he were working now all the writers on the planet would quit and work for him. yes, he would get elected today. >> who would have gotten elected today? >> i tell you what, tom dooley sort of spanned the introduction of television. he ran three times. he ran against f.d.r. in 1944, and of course famously against harry truman in 1948. he had been this great courtroom prosecutor who became famous while still in his 1930's for putting away the likes of lucky luch -- lucciano and others. he was a courtroom performer and

that translated superbly well for a television studio. >> let me disagree a little bit. this is a guy that has, and i have to look around to see, he had a moustache who said he had a moustache who said he looks like he's an ornament on a wedding cake. that might be a compliment in terms of some circles, but on the other hand -- >> he was a guy who couldn't be handled. the people who be his handlers said, you have to shave your moustache. it reminds people of charlie chap atlanta and worse, hitler. there was also a big gap between his teeth. he wouldn't fix it. why? his wife liked him like that. that tells you something about personal character if nothing else.

but i think it is a persuader. someone who could make the tv camp -- camera his ally. >> or richard how about wilke who runs in 1940 against roosevelt? how would he have done on television? >> it is a question of richard. wilke belongs where he came from , in corporate executive rules. he doesn't have any public experience. i believe there is a certain level of exposure that contenders and winners need. now, as long as i briefly have the floor, i'd like to present to all of you an idea of why it is contenders are important. i think sometimes when we talk about presidential politics, of course we're always talking about winners.

americans love winners, don't talk about the losers, but william paul from our position is just a one-person context. at the time when americans are voting for these men, they were looking at an entirely different landscape:.

>> these questions are somewhat trite, but who of all of these 14, who would you like to have, three of them, at a table and you are the host a little lunch or dinner party? >> a debate on capitalism between wendell willkie and jean-would be interesting. i am not sure you would need a third. third. had george wallace. wouldn't that be a lively conversation? conversation? >> what kind of person would be

fun to talk to among these 14? >> henry clay would be. >> why would he be fun? >> by all accounts, this was the most -- along with andrew jackson, his great enemy, this was the most charismatic, galvanizing, polarizing, magnetic figure for the first half of the 19th century. by all accounts, there was an aura, a spell about the man. his very nickname, the great compromiser. >> the country is being split apart and he wants to keep it together, but he is very much identified with one side. he is a partisan guy who wants to unite people. all of the problems of the error you could get from this guy and why we could not elect him is the same reason we eventually went to war. they could not be resolved.

>> he ran against three different people for the presidency. >> yes. >> he was secretary of state, speaker of the house, and a senator. >> and a very constructive statement. that is the interesting thing about him. we talk about grover cleveland. each man had impressive aspects to their personal or political character, and yet look at their record in office. grover cleveland is generally regarded as the most impressive president between lincoln and theodore roosevelt. >> and off the list, perhaps in parentheses, we should talk about some contenders that we should forget. >> well, they have been forgotten.

>> let me ask you though, you wrote a book on adelaide stevenson. would you put adelaide stevenson at the table? >> yes. >> did you ever meet him? >> know. i did spend some time with his son, who as you know was a senator and then resigned in 1980. he made a big tactical mistake, went back and ran for governor in illinois and was beaten. he retired from politics. but that is interesting thing about most of these people. they are really committed to anything in public service and they are all effective politicians. adlai stevenson had that side to him of -- i am not sure i really want to be doing this, and yet he has given us some of the best epithet's we have in america. i remember he said to

eisenhower in 1952, i will stop telling the truth about republicans if they will stop telling lies about the democrats. democrats. nixon was accused of cutting every tree down and then standing on it to give the stump speech. >> there are still a dwindling number of americans proudly known as stevensonians. now, the one book on his desk at the time of his death was the social register. >> i am not sure that is actually true. i will give you a pass. >> but he brought stability.

he brought a high sense of he brought a high sense of purpose, and he brought great campaign wit. we have gotten ridiculous about this whole process. going back to what you said. he was a man ahead of his time. he was the first man to talk about a nuclear test ban treaty. he was proposing the vote for 18-year-old. that is another critical function of these also-rans. they often introduce ideas that may not be accepted at the time, but who in fact find their way into the political bloodstream and become the norm. >> can we turn that around and say -- any of these contenders represent the past, the moment in history in which they campaigned. it was the end of a certain style, is certain number of issues, or whenever. >> back to henry clay.

he is a tragic figure also, in a way. the great thing dividing this country is the west being built up, and we know that the united states is already going to go to the pacific ocean, but are those states going to be free states or slave states? henry clay wants to go to the ocean. he wants the union to remain intact, but he does not want them to be declared free states because he does not want his south to be marginalized. it is really the last time in history you can straddle that issue, and he paid for it and we paid for it. >> i was thinking about echoes of the future in adelaide stevenson. he was accused of not being tough enough. there were strains of the kennedy administration. but what does that really

foreshadow? the future of the democratic party. the idea that we will work with communities, not dictate to communities, that becomes part of the democratic party's dna. of the democratic party's dna. it is a political bio the find expressions in many ways. projecting onto george mcgovern. the idea of america as a republic not an empire. henry clay had a familiar way of seeing familiar facts. you could look at henry clay as someone who failed to achieve his goal and never became president. but on the other hand, to the extent that he contributed --

and he was not the only one responsible for the compromise of 1850. he died shortly thereafter. what did that do? that precluded war for 10 years. 10 years for the north to grow industrially. industrially. >> on the other side, 10 years for the south to gain a sense of indemnity. there was an idea that they would become a separate unit, a separate nation. separate nation. >> does anyone believe that if nothing else, henry clay gave us 10 years for abraham lincoln to emerge? to emerge? >> including james buchanan. >> and remember, henry clay was

lincoln's idea of a statesman. how does that affect us today? remember a few years ago when bill kristol and others at the weekly standard were talking about what they called national greatness conservatism. it is not a phrase that you hear much today, but it was very much one crowded in -- and clay was part of that tradition, going back to hamilton. the idea of an energetic government doing conservative things. he gave us something called the american system, which was an enormous shot in the arm to the infrastructure of america and the american economy. >> let's do something for those watching to catch them up on all of these 14. let me go backwards.

let me go to the newest one on the list, that will be shown on november 9th. i will move very quickly and have you pop in with quick comments about what relevancy all of these people had at their time. ross perot will be our december 9th program. what would you say about him? >> third party outsider. in some ways a cultivator of what is very clear now, and that is lots and lots of american angst. >> more specifically, a forerunner of the tea party in many ways. ross perot's greatest accomplishment was to insist that the two political parties deal with the deficit. >> i would add to that. i went to a farm one day and we had a conference where people said, nobody cares about this deficit. then ross perot gives a speech about it, a musician sings a song about it, and we do care about the deficit. ross perot did two things.

he may have gotten bill clinton elected, and he may have stopped this movement for a while. the tea party things we're spending too much money. ross perot talked about this. he had pie charts and we laughed at him. he got 20% of the vote after he quit the race. he behaved in a flaky way. he still got 20% of the vote. that is what you're seeing. is that too long? >> that is good. the second will be george mcgovern. what pops out right away? >> he rewrote the rules by which the democratic nominee would be nominated. in a broader sense, he brought in this tradition that you could take back to allied stevenson, william jennings

bryan, the anti-war strain of the democratic party. the left wing of the democratic party. >> to me, george mcgovern is when political writers began looking at the race tactically and breaking down all of these things. he picked the wrong vice- president and took forever to pick him. he gave a speech at 2:00 in the morning. the fact that he loses in a landslide does not change the fact we are hooked on process. >> getting only 38% of the vote. what a catastrophe. that is probably the lowest percentage in a two-party race in a century.

here is this guy that did not run a good campaign, and yet, he understood politics. he understood politics. he had been able, somehow, in south dakota, to be elected. >> he ran as a racist. he was the last person to do it. >> he would hold these press conferences. i was in high school and not talking about race, i am talking about welfare. and the cameras would go off, and he would say, you know who i mean. that was the end of the discussion in a way that we were talking about henry clay. were talking about henry clay. >> if you go back to george

mcgovern, look at the nixon 43% in 1968, george wallace had an enormous impact on politics and the government of his time. if you think of the nixon southern strategy, if you think of the supreme court nominees that nixon wanted to put on, nixon understood that for him to submit what people then talked about as an emerging republican majority, it would involve turning the south from solid democrat to solid republican. and here we are 40 years later. >> what comes to mind when you think of george wallace? >> what has been said, but beyond that, a guy who really was corrupt in the sense that he manipulated public opinion. he manipulated public opinion. as i am understand his early

career, this was a man who was not, as his predecessor was, and out and out racist, but at some point george wallace understands that his private ambitions are going to require this terrible assault, and so he begins this process whereby he sells out. the other thing that is interesting about george wallace is that he's sort of flies in and out of the democratic party. he starts the american independent party. >> he goes out against lyndon johnson and he astonishes. it was the first time the term backlash was coined, the idea that white voters angered by civil rights and the social revolution would leave their

traditional home in the new deal, democratic, kennedy party and vote for a george wallace in the primaries and then vote for goldwater in the fall or become conservative republicans. >> hubert humphrey. >> a lot of heart. >> you like him. >> an ocean of heart. our daughter was graduating from the university of pennsylvania and we went very happily to the graduation. three and a half hours later after his one and a half hour graduation speech, we left. nonetheless, hubert humphrey, to me, was indeed the happy warrior, which it was a name given to al smith. >> buy? who gives it? who calls him and the happy

warrior at the convention? franklin delano roosevelt. franklin delano roosevelt. >> 1948, he leads the walk out of the dixiecrats. he tells the democrats, it is time to emerge from the shadow of states' rights and march into the sunshine of human rights. it is one of the great moments of history that every democrat should be proud of. that is what i think. he was mayor of minneapolis that time. >> he also transformed the lives presidency and a surprising way because he had such a miserable experience under lyndon johnson from 1965-1969. his fellow minnesotan walter mondale was offered a job by jimmy carter, and as a result of what he learned from hubert humphrey, he became the modern vice president.

he had his own office in the white house. he was not in a separate building. he was not fob off on the space program or what ever else presidents give their vice presidents to fill time. >> we could talk about him for 90 minutes. 90 minutes. the happy warrior thing with him was genuine. billy graham told me this story. if you ever hear billy graham's imitating hubert humphrey's voice, he is quite good at it actually. actually. he moves to the state that has the cleanest government. he is swimming at the ymca. men's swim altogether.

men's swim altogether. he is resting outside the pool and hubert lumbers over to him. he reaches down and insists on shaking hands and says, hello, billy graham's. i am hubert humphrey. i'm running for mayor. i would really like your vote. >> we need to go to barry goldwater. >> do we really need to? can i say one more thing about hubert? >> barry goldwater. >> ok. >> well, the beginning of modern conservatism. but also, an unlikely politician. some of these people seem to have absorbed in their water, soup or whatever -- he should of been the head of the department store in phoenix. store in phoenix. yet gradually, he takes this path that i think is true of some other politicians.

they get into community affairs, and then, as you know, he is elected to the senate, and he certainly is a man of principles. principles. he has given us one of our perhaps worst quotations. >> involving the a-bomb? >> and he was the victim of a really dirty journalistic trick by the johnson campaign. i do think that is an unfair kind of political ad. kind of political ad. >> the problem is, in some ways he set himself up for that. lbj gets 486 electoral votes to 52. goldwater barely carried his own state of arizona.

>> do you attribute to him the new southern added? >> he voted against the civil rights act. he voted against debate. again, you could call him a man of principle. he had himself been instrumental in desegregating his family's department stores, the national guard in arizona, but he was such a believer in states' rights and so constitutionally opposed to what he saw as federal coercion. the other thing, of course, with barry goldwater is that he is every liberals favorite

conservative because he called jerry falwell names. he was outspokenly pro-gay rights. he famously said you do not have to be straight to serve. you just have to shoot straight. >> when president reagan nominated sandra day o'connor to be on the court -- he had said he would nominate a woman, and he took that as his own promise. jesse helms spoke against her and said she was not solid on the right-to-life movement. barry goldwater went out there and said, i'm going back to washington and i am going to explain to jesse helms that i am the most conservative man in the senate. in some ways, he was not any more. falwell made a statement that any loyal american should oppose the appointment of sandra day o'connor.

barry goldwater said any loyal american should kick jerry falwell's ass. he is also a cranky guy. as he got older, he got crankier. if he was angry at something you said or did, he would take his cane and physically let you know his displeasure. we say we want authentic people representing as. representing as. he was authentic. >> these programs are 14 in number. there every friday night at 8:00 and 11:00 east coast time, 5:00 and 8:00 on the west coast. we are going down the list of all 14. they are people who ran for the presidency and lost.

the next one is on november 4th, adelaide stevenson, which is your specialty. how often did he run? who did he run against? how badly was he beaten? >> he ran twice, 1952 and 1956. he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower. i do not really think that there is any way that adelaide stevenson could have won those elections. americans like military heroes. there are few generals that ran the did not win. eisenhower is an unassailable character, and i'm not sure character, and i'm not sure that adelaide stevenson ran the most effective campaign. at least in 1952. he never could change his rhetoric and couch it in the necessity of television time. necessity of television time. >> he would run out of time.

he would get cut off in the middle of a speech. he had great speechwriter's too, by the way. there is a whole generation of people that adelaide stevenson brought into the process. >> but still, these were not -- he lost, what? he lost, what? in the high 40's. the second time, he was in the lower 40's. it was not a disaster. >> but he managed to lose to a president during a recession. >> but you are right about ike. he was hard to beat. the real number that stands out about 1952 was something like

11 million voters more than just four years before. that is a reflection on the dewey-truman choice, but more, people were given these two spectacular candidates to choose from. from. >> this is the contribution of adelaide stevenson. we all know -- i do not know what the statistics are, what the statistics are, however many people are independent. they are not assigned. they do not choose any party. they do not choose any party. it was adelaide stevenson who begins, in this primitive campaign in illinois, to try to encourage independence to support someone who is an intelligent candidate. >> that is a perfect transition

for me. his legacy -- he is obviously intellectual. ike knows it. he beats him. what is the moral? the voters do not want an intellectual. so eisenhower begins, as president, dumbing down his speeches. >> did he have to? >> that is my point. but also, how he thought -- his lesson was, people do not want the intellectual. he did not want to sound like one. he would go in and cross our words they had written and make smaller words, literally in his own hands. the combination is the great "saturday night live" skit. republicans to this day do not want to sound intellectual. there is as saturday night live sketch where reagan sounds addled and then his aides leave and in the privacy of his thing he speaks very intelligently on policy. adlai stevenson caused both

parties to decide that is not the way to get elected. >> october 28th, how well do you know tom dewey? >> i spent some of the best years of my life -- 1980 i left washington, d.c. i moved lock, stock and remington typewriter to rochester, new york, for one year, where the papers were housed. i spend every day from 9:00 until 5:00 going through boxes of paper and then going home and writing on night. i could not do it now. >> why? >> because i am about 30 years older. hopefully 30 years wiser. but he was a remarkable story. multiple stories, because you had the whole racket busting era, very colorful in the 1930's, when thomas dewey was

the nation's leading crime fighter. he had a unique background for a presidential candidate. in 1939, with hitler about to invade poland, the gallup poll comes out and it shows thomas e. dewey, the 37-year-old district attorney of new york county leading franklin roosevelt in the event that fdr decides to run for a third term. obviously, subsequent events intervened. the republicans turned to a dark horse named wendell willkie. but thomas dewey would go on to become a three term governor of new york. along with al smith he is regarded as one of the best governors of the century. governors of the century. he is one of those people who i think would have been a much better president than he was a candidate. >> do you have any remembrance of him? >> i am a newspaper man. i have one.

it is seared into our dna. it is the chicago tribune headline "dewey defeats truman." your first day of journalism school, they tattoo you with that headline and you're never supposed to assume facts again. because he did not defeat him, for our viewers who are younger than 48. than 48. >> your the washington bureau chief of real true politics. you're doing a lot of historical stuff. >> you get my newsletter every morning. morning. >> what makes you think that people want to read about history? >> well, history is fascinating and people know it. they want to know about their world today. they all have echoes. he is not one of the 14, not on the list, bob dole, but if we had 15, he might have been. bob dole gives a talk in 1996 where he is nominated and he says he is not against teachers

but he is against the teachers union. he is attacked for this. that is not that long ago, 1996. this year, 2011, we a documentary movies by liberals about the teachers unions. we have a secretary of education who feels much the same way. he is more diplomatic than that. people care about history because it not only tells you where we have been, but if you listen very carefully, it tells you where we are going. >> i think of him mainly as the gangbuster. i am impressed by the number and the significance of the nicknames that some of these contenders and winners get. you may have another nickname, but as far as i am concerned, this was an effective guy who violated one of those laws to move beyond your pay grade. i am sure richard does not agree with that.

he is certainly an interesting man, that there is something about him that is not effective as an american politician. had he been elected, he would of been one of this group that i think would have done the worst job. >> i tell you why i disagree. if he had one -- and this is not necessarily part of the series -- who knows? but we may in fact have to stop to speculate on how history would have been different. had thomas dewey been elected in 1948 -- 1944 would have been out of the question -- you never would have heard of joe mccarthy. thomas dewey never would have permitted -- he ran a machine in new york.

there was a debate over whether the american communist party should be outlawed. he took the civil libertarian position, you cannot shoot an idea. >> what year did you publish a book on mary todd lincoln? >> she was not a contender. >> what year did you do the adelaide stevenson book? >> 1985. >> how many years have you taught history? >> since medieval times, almost. >> 30-40 years. the reason i ask is, what has happened to students and their interest in history over the years? >> students keep coming back.

i do not want to be one of these i do not want to be one of these lacerating, parental types that say we have significant historical amnesia, but i do think that students think that the past is over. in fact, i have had them tell me that when they're thinking about what is going to be their major. it is over. it is gone. on the other hand, as you say, history is an abiding, in during interest and discipline. thousands of americans, sometimes after they have graduated with business degrees, turn to history and find that it is the most consuming thing in their lives. >> how many years have you taught at george mason? >> 5. >> what do you sense is the attitude about history among your students? >> i guess i am lucky. >> i guess i am lucky. obviously there are exceptions, but i have found students to be

particularly interested in the subject of the presidency. we actually cover all of the president in 14 weeks. we do everyone. it is interesting, because a lot of these kids, i often ask why they are taking the course. and number of them say, i know about the people with monuments on the mall, but i want to know more about james garfield or calvin coolidge. i want to know the hidden corners, the knicks and crannies of american history. >> on october the 21st, i see it the name wendell willkie, a man from indiana. a one worlder. what did that mean? >> he would not be a conservative republican today, would he? >> he was not a conservative republican back then. >> he was a corporate republican and he was engaged in a national debate -- we use the phrase class warfare now. class warfare now. republicans use it pejoratively

when democrats talk, but that is what it was, class warfare. wendell willkie was born on a farm and roosevelt was born to a grand family, and they never saw the irony of what defended. >> what did he look like? >> what did he look like? >> he looked like a bear. he was a great big, larger than life, rumpled figure, who nevertheless had an aura, a charisma. one person famously said that his candidacy, which spun out of nowhere, a seemingly -- nowhere, a seemingly -- >> that he had never had a job.

>> that he had never had a job. >> he was a jeffersonian democrat until the new deal. he said that his candidacy sprung from the grassroots of every country club in america. there has never been anyone like him. it is hard to imagine there ever been anyone like him. he was beyond a dark horse. >> did he ever have a chance of winning? >> oh, no. i suppose of all of the people that took roosevelt on, he and dewey probably had the most difficult issue. although -- >> what was the issue? >> isolationism versus interventionism. as we remember, the united states was not committed, and roosevelt was working hard on all kinds of changing public opinion, but also public

policies, and wendell willkie, as it turns out, really was an interventionist and wrote this book about one world. i would like to ask you about it. i have never read one world. is it a pre-u.n.? >> it is the book woodrow wilson would have written if he had lived in 1942-1943. a lot of these contenders are in the series because they were nominated, not just because they ran, but because they were nominated by a party to run for president. wendell willkie is a great example. his greatest service to the country arguably came after 1940 when he became an emissary 1940 when he became an emissary for fdr, traveled around the

world, and foreshadow the realignment of political parties which has arguably taken place. >> roosevelt outlived him. he died in 1944 and so did his running mate. >> the speaker of the house? >> he was only 52. >> how appropriate. he burned out. he lived his life like that, and somehow it was not a surprise. >> october 14th, al smith. >> al smith. in many ways a father of the modern democratic party. >> where was he from? >> new york state. he was a governor, you know, raised in the shadows of brooklyn bridge. >> and tammany hall. >> and tammany hall. a classic tammany hall politician who outgrew his origins. do you know the last republican presidential candidate to carry new york city was calvin

coolidge in 1924? four years later, al smith is the democratic candidate against herbert hoover. he begins the process of forging an urban-world, but mostly urban-immigrant -- >> he also starts and uncomfortable conversation. >> -- coalition. >> which is can the catholic be president. president. there is openly anti-catholic innuendo used against smith. it is not used against kennedy. kennedy dealt with this issue, but smith is the pioneer. but smith is the pioneer. >> with kennedy, we get the ghost of al smith. >> the other reason al smith -- besides the catholicism charge -- these are good times.

we talk about the biography of personalities, but it is really important to have the context of prosperity. you know, they were good times. although, there were these areas where folks in america's were not doing so well. not doing so well. >> we know things about her hoover we did not know then, but al smith was running against a guy who was personally credited with saving millions of lives in world war i. world war i. he was a heroic figure. al smith, in addition to his faith, was seen and heard as an alien figure. if you listen to him on the if you listen to him on the radio, this wonderful accent from the lower east side of manhattan, this was a chance

for people in america to vote against a new york. this was a chance to vote against all that they thought was alien and an american, and somehow vaguely -- he was beaten very badly. he got 87 electoral votes. and hoover broke open the south. not eisenhower, not barry goldwater, but herbert hoover who breaks open the south. >> charles everett hughes. >> well, i think of him in the context -- and i am not sure that you to will, of women's suffrage. charles evans hughes was a progressive on women's suffrage. >> he ran against woodrow wilson. >> ran against woodrow wilson, and there were four or five states during this time that had women's suffrage, so the idea of

the women was to go and use their vote, get those states to support charles evans hughes. there was an uproar. the wilsonian were furious about this. you simply did not do that. in any case, it did not work, and wilson is the person who ends up being pushed and pushed towards women's suffrage in 1920. but the other thing about the hughes campaign is just how close it was. i think we think of wilson as being somehow triumphant, but this was a very, very close election. >> hughes is actually one of the unusual figures in this in that his race for president is arguably one of the less distinguished chapters of an extraordinarily distinguished and useful career. he had been a great governor of new york. he was on the supreme court.

he left the court to run against wilson, was secretary of state throughout the 1920's -- generally regarded as one of our best secretaries of state -- and then his great impact was when he went back on the court and almost single-handedly for did franklin roosevelts attempt to pack the court. >> several governors of new york. what was it about governors of new york in those days? you do not see any of that now. >> i think california. when i was a kid, calif. eclipsed new york. this happened over a gradual period of time. in arguably, population is a fact. in other ways, in ways of new yorkers are reluctant to admit. what is happening now is that maybe texas is doing that to california.

these things change. but he is, because he was a new yorker, brought with him attitudes not just about gender but about race. he was a racial moderate. if he defeats wilson, washington is not re-segregated. that was wilson's doing. the civil rights movement might have moved along faster. have moved along faster. for women, a civil-rights, foreign policy -- germany sort of baited us into war. would he use have avoided that? >> he had been referred to as the bearded icicle. he had a very chilly, aura of rectitude. yes, he did have a beard. when hughes stayed at the white

house, calvin coolidge sent to his barber up to his room. >> if i remember, wilson had to stay up all night. >> it was a couple of days because california define the race. >> there are two guys. norman thomas ran for president on a socialism ticket. the one on our list is eugene debs of terre haute indiana. what do you think of him? >> i think of a principled guy who was at the forefront of the labor movement. i think he was a labor leader. he runs on the socialist ticket. he was a guy who wants to break the trusts and give the working man power. man power. we are in a time now where we

are talking about public employees unions. there was no such thing. he was talking about people who work with their hands for a living and do dangerous things. he fought for the right to organize. organize. his day came, but not in his time. >> he was also outspoken in his opposition to world war i. he was, for his pains, thrown in jail by woodrow wilson, the great champion of self- determination. he was ultimately pardoned by an even unlikely your character, warren g. harding. what ever else you say about him, was a kind, a genial -- he wanted debs to come visit him at christmas time. he wanted to meet him. >> he ran in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1911, and ran from prison in 1912.

>> i think of him as separating american socialism. we forget when we throw this pejorative out to the democrats. socialism at the turn of the century was a very viable philosophy. there were socialists who were collected -- elected. he was the one who separates american socialism from the european variety. he is on able effort to make the case to workers that there can be socialism. i think -- he was a very

important contender. >> september 23, we are back to your favorites, and william jennings bryan. what else can you remember? >> here is what intrigues me about william jennings bryan. he is so misunderstood. if one of your students has heard of him, he has heard of them as matthew harrison brady. it was brought back after 9/11 and it was originally written during the mccarthy period it. it was supposed to be against a morality -- was supposed to be a morality tale. william jennings bryan, he is in the play and then the book and

on television. he is a buffoon figure. william jennings bryan was not against darwinism because he earther.at pthirdea william jennings bryan was very much worried that darwinism would be used -- evolution would be used as an excuse to not help support, not help children, not help people with disabilities. that is what he was really arguing against. i picked him now because he is this misunderstood guy. >> do you have any idea we could compare into today? >> 0, boy. >> it is politics. >> let me tell you what i think

about him. maybe that will help. to generate a modern political figure. i think of them -- i think of him as a good campaigner. those speeches, there are several of them, they are quite memorable. he also is committed to campaigning. he is one of the modern presidents, one of the first modern presidents who gets off of his porch. william mckinley did not. i think he even campaigns -- >> there is an amazing statistic to show you how much he transformed the campaign. in 1896, more americans turned

out to see them in person. more people turned out to see them in person than 100 years later turned out to sea bill clinton, bob dole, and perot in person. it was an extraordinary time when people defined themselves as their party allegiance. one of the quick -- one other quick thing about william jennings bryan, one speech. it's so galvanized that convention. without that speech, he would not have been nominated. jump forward 60 years, adelaide stephenson, who does not want to run, delivers a welcoming address to the democrats. jump forward 50 years, barack obama delivers a welcoming

keynote. you can still -- the connection between the william jennings bryan and obama is that one speech can make a career. >> did he have any other government jobs? >> he was a congressman from nebraska and he was a lousy secretary of state. >> i would not say that he was lousy. he resigned over a principled issue. i always wondered why the americans did not resign when there is an issue of principle. >> his commitment to principle. >> do you remember what cyrus vance resigned about? >> he did not. he opposed something and it did not --

>> i thought he stepped down. >> i do not think so. >> wasn't it over the attempted rescue? >> the carter failed rescue? >> the carter failed rescue? >> and then he was appointed in his place. >> so he did resign? >> we have a big hole in this program. >> who ever thought that cyrus vance would come out? >> september 16, it it will be 90 minutes 8:00. my favorite story, it is not a great story, is when he was sitting in the park and barfield walked across -- barfield walked across department and he is sitting there and there is

nobody around him. nobody around him. give us that relationship with james garfield. >> not good. he had -- he was the kind of guy that burned to the bridges with a lot of people. i think of james blaine as brilliant. the continental liar from the state of maine. mwai continental? -- why continental? >> in 1876, it was james blaine that presented ulysses grant from coming back and winning a third term.

>> besides being secretary of state for james garfield's -- >> he was secretary of state under three presidents. >> what else did he do? >> he was in congress, he was speaker of the house. >> he change some of the rules and the house. i am not sure which rules they are. the speaker of the house are always changing rules to their advantage. he was a capable guy. >> this was the period it after the civil war when congress was much more central than it had been. been. the reaction against the strong executive said in. to be a power in congress in 1870's, 1880's, meant a lot more than it does today. >> i was curious -- what do you think would have happened if he

had won? >> i think he would be regarded as the best president between lincoln and fdr. he was a sort of. -- assertive. he had a lot of talent. people are consumed by the presidency. it is a malignancy that they suffer from. if they survive it, and they leave the office, james blaine was someone like clay. they were both very charismatic, polarizing figures, who, in office, would have distinguished themselves. >> sometimes we overdo the presidency. there is not much we would have

changed if we shuffled these men around and put one in a place of the other. there are obvious exceptions. they are worth talking about. there is this a jump from the contenders in 1884 to 1824. henry clay -- do we have a moment to stop? a critical election in 1860. where it really did make a difference who was elected. i think it is like a chess board. these presidents often, because american politics is so senseless, they are over here on one issue. they will move back -- >> if you look at the republicans, often dark forces,

-- a dark horses, who were elected. james blaine stands out in terms of personality. the fact that he was -- that he demonstrated a capacity to govern in congress. he might -- the presidency is a diminished institution. all i am saying is that the possibility for a counter interpretation is that there would not be this blank wall. >> he is memorable in congress. you cannot take public moneys and use them for religious institutions. >> i want to get on the record,

thanks to our producer. he did resign in 19 -- a -- >> i am not ready to give up. there was another issue that might be presentable -- resignable. >> stick to your point. >> on september the ninth, our first program, are 14-week series on friday nights. we will have cameras on scene at their homes and libraries around the country. the first thing " -- the first one will be henry clay. he ran three times. >> he was nominated three times, he ran five times. >> five times?

>> 1824, he was nominated again in 1832, and 1844. he was -- he probably would have run from the grave. >> has there ever been anybody that ran for as many offices? he was elected speaker in his first day of congress. >> he is a man of superlatives. he is a larger-than-life figure. >> i am not arguing that he was the best person we ever had. >> the governor of minnesota.

>> he became a joke. >> yes, he did. >> was henry clay ever a joke? >> no. >> yes, he was. i do not know whether he was a joke, but henry clay was a nasty guy, too. he is to pick on people in congress. one of the people he picked on was buchanan. james buchanan worked hard to be what he called a working senator and congressman. there were all these other people that were new. he would say something in congress and henry clay would call him and nancy mahon. making terrible personal comments. henry clay would point to his eyes.

>> you could not do that with c- span cameras in the chamber now. the senate would not show you a cutaway of henry clay. very important to know. we have about 15 minutes left. we can go quickly through them again and talk about something personal about them. all of them, the best speaker? is it obvious? >> there are some great speakers on there. >> why don't we just go around? >> hubert humphrey. >> henry clay. >> though we do think would be the friendliest person of the 14? >> also hubert humphrey.

>> who would be the smartest of the 14? >> henry clay. >> tom dewey. >> who did you say? >> stephenson. >> i said henry clay. >> crew of the 14 was not very smart? -- two of the 14 was not very smart? >> it really depends on how you are defining smart. there were people who were really good at running an office. but not running for office. there were people -- which one had the image of not being very smart? you never know. >> george wallace. >> he exploited it brilliantly.

>> he almost brought in about it, but he had street smarts. >> mcgovern was a history professor. >> and a world war ii hero. >> let me change my answer. mcgovern is a very bright person. person. >> who would have been the nastiest? >> charles evans hughes. >> coup would have been personally the nastiest? >> henry clay. >> i would not dissent from that. >> if you were african-american, you might want to say george wallace. >> that is different.

>> you have done a book on tom dewey, you have done a book on mr. stevenson. if you had to pick another one -- >> that would be fun. >> idec richard is writing a book. >> -- i bet richard is writing a book. book. >> he seemed polite. >> the question is true is the best company? i think stephenson. >> that is not the question. the question is, who would write

a book about? >> it does not have to be the first book. it is the best kind of history, we are still arguing about it. what is the role of labor? how many right -- how much of rights should workers have? who should speak for them? we are still arguing about it. >> and george mcgovern. >> why? >> he is interviewable. that is a tremendous help when you are trying to penetrate a career. he did to -- he did get to sort of be a joke, but he is a very honorable man. i admire deeply what he was trying to do during the vietnam

war. >> if i were writing a book, it would be charles evans hughes. it has been 60 years since the washington post reporter wrote a two-volume. it is good, but 60 years later, it is a bit dated. charles evans hughes is what we claim be wants in both a presidential candidate and a president. president. a man of absolute integrity, who would not yield to the special interests. >> let me go down the list and asking. if ross perot had not dropped out in 1992, he got 19% of the vote. that was after he dropped out. he has 33% ahead of the other two. people do not remember this. it was not that long ago.

he was leading and he was leading an incumbent president. bill clinton was a distant third. in june of that year, a friend of mine who worked at the dnc, called me and said he was worried that bill clinton was going to qualify so far behind the other tube. -- other two. >> he got 19% became back. >> ross perot drops out of the race, bill clinton pitches is al gore as his running mate. they have a united democratic convention. bill clinton emerges ahead in the polls. as far as i know, to this day, he has never trailed republican again. my point, these things are not

written in stone. there is nothing inevitable about him listing. >> ross perot has never agreed to talk about the 1992 election. he ran again in 1996. there has never been much written about him since then. >> it is curious. he is an unconventional politician. i am sure he would not regard themselves as a politician. it is curious because he made a significant historical contribution. he changed the course of american history. and the echoes of that are with us today. he may be one of those people who does not want to live in the past. or it may be that there are scars from that campaign. he may be bitter about the way he was treated.

>> the issue was the daughter. the daughter was getting married. there was some personal issue. >> he mumbled something about it, it never any satisfactory explanation about why he quit the race. i covered that campaign. i have no idea. i am not sure that ross perot knows. he may be better now. he may have some recriminations at himself. >> and material figure. >> let's go to george mcgovern. how did richard nixon after watergate beat george mcgovern? would it made any difference if he had not given that speech at 3:00 in the morning? >> probably. i think we are hyper managing campaigns in the context of what really happens when voters go into the polls.

i am sure that a lot of americans who voted for ross perot thought, he has dropped out? what is going on? he was a third-party candidate. i still think that george mcgovern -- the party is not over. he can draw presumably on this pool of democrats. where did they go? >> we tend to minimize nixon's >> we tend to minimize nixon's achievement in forging a new political consensus. by 1972, for a whole host of reasons, including a counter

reaction, the silent majority was real. whatever you think about it. nixon very skillfully played to their fears and the emotions of american exceptional is of and the american government -- he was a war hero yet he was always portrayed as -- >> there was another war going on. mcgovern was asked to be on " meet the press" or one of these shows and he's news and rolls his eyes and said i will go down nominees if necessary. he did not mean that literally.

his quarreling with the prose of the question, which means that pulling out would make it harder to get the pow's out. if the uses his speech in prime time, richard was not in touch with swing voters. was he ready for prime time? that is the question. >> he was and he was not. he did not carry his own state. it was a landslide election. there was the the thing he did, the macro thing -- he and the democrats asked this question. to you really think that nixon has the character to be president? watergate was not fully known then. the answer to that, universally, was, well, no, not really.

we never did. but he is the president though. how was he doing? in 1972, it was as much a referendum on the challenger, much as barry goldwater. >> how was the eagleton fiasco? >> it reinforced. a moderate democrat, a natural balance for george mcgovern. not his first choice for vice president, but, nevertheless, he was nominated. subsequently, it was revealed that he had not told listeners or those around him that he had been treated for depression. he may have received electric shock at some point.

that conjured images from "suddenly last summer." he subsequently withdrew from the ticket and reinforced the notion that this man is not ready to be president. >> the vice presidential pick is often the first time the american people get to see this nominee make a big decision. it is the first time and it sticks with them for long time. >> i want to make sure that we do one last thing. do any of you have recommendations for the audience for a book they can read that will be particularly interesting and fun for them in regards to all 14 contenders? quirks there is -- >> there is a classic, somewhat at of date, but timely readable by irving

stone who is best known for his novels of historical fiction. >> what about an individual biography? >> the married couple, h.ademics, begins with ag >> i am embarrassed. i want to say heidegger. they were from colorado. in their favor, they were an excellent interview. they sat right here. >> if you want to know about willkie, that era, there are two

books. one is the book on roosevelt and the depression by eric -- i do not have the title in my mind. the other one is "the forgotten man." you read those two books and they come from different standpoints. >> from the left and the right. >> you will understand roosevelt and willkie and you will understand the environment. >> i want to remind you that the program is called "the contenders" starting september 9. 9. you teach at got to college. where is it? >> in baltimore, md.. >> and your favor course in history? >> women's history. >> you write for

realclearpolitics.com. what is it? >> we have our special sauce, the real clear politics pulling average. we do original content. we have two great political writers who cover the white house for us. >> richard, i don't know where to start? [laughter] this series is partly your responsibility and you will be involved in it. why do you think it matters? >> it is an alternative way of looking at our history generally. but it is also great fun to have the opportunity week after week after week to make the

acquaintance of historical characters. the odds are that you do not know very much about them. i think you will enjoy the experience. >> thank you to all three of you. we look forward to 14 weeks of "the contenders." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in 1844, henry clay ran for president of the united states and lost. but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new series "the contenders." this way, his kentucky home. >> for more on our series, go to our website at c-span.org. you will find a schedule of the series, biographies of all the candidates, historians

appraisals, and portions of their speeches when available. that is that c-span.org /thecontenders. >> next week, the anniversary of 9/11. here is airline schedule. saturday, on c-span, at 12:30 p.m. eastern, the flight 93 national memorial dedication ceremony in pennsylvania. sunday morning at a 30 a.m., immoral ceremony at the -- at 8:30 a.m., a memorial ceremony at the world trade center. honoring those who lost their lives on flight 93. next week on the c-span networks. >> reinterred tom cosentino said that the security forces in

afghanistan will continue to improve as long as the united states finishes its mission there. the deputy commanding general for support in training missions in afghanistan also talked about the stability of the afghans -- afghan secret forces. in relation to the 2014 deadline, this is about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am the associate director of the south asia council. i would like to welcome you to what will certainly be a very interesting discussion this afternoon. the south asian center which was launched in 2009 has quickly become a central forum for policy makers, members of congress, and both european and

south asian leaders. the center for offices on the greater south asia region, which includes the gulf, iran, afghanistan, and central asia. the center, since its establishment in the last two years, has become a central point discoursed on issues related to afghanistan. with the onset of the drawdown of u.s. and isaf forces and a deadline for a full transition to take place in 2014, many questions remain of the ability for afghan forces to effectively take on security operations and secure success. we're pleased to have brigadier- general tom constant chino, the deputy commanding general for regional support of the native training mission in afghanistan

to introduce him and moderate, i would like to pass the microphone over to barbara slavin. she is a are non-resident senior fellow and a vital participant of our iran task force. >> thank you very much. we did not expect quite this turn out in august. we're delighted to have you here. we had the great pleasure of meeting the general when he was a colonel and had a fellowship at the u.s. institute of peace in 20007-2008. since that time, he has gone on to more distinguished things. we are absolutely delighted that he was able to make time to come and talk with us at this pivotal

moment. as you know, the mission in afghanistan has been very difficult, very complicated. it is the bloodiest year for u.s. forces. last month, there was the highest number of u.s. casualties since the war began 10 years ago. there is a lot that is expected of the national afghan army and the afghan police. there is skepticism whether there will be up to the task. i will ask the preliminary question or two and then we will open to questions from the floor. i think one of the major concerns that i hear is that the ethnic mix, in terms of the officer corps, is not right. there is a very small percentage of pashtun from the south and very few in the officer ranks.

the first question is what are you doing to address that and can this really be a successful national army as long as southern pashtuns seem to want to stay away from it in great numbers? >> first of all, thank you all for coming today, especially on a beautiful washington, d.c. day. this ethnic balance issue is critical, but is tied to a few factors. besides the historical factors, their practical issues, especially in the leadership ranks for the army and police. most specifically, the literacy rate or illiteracy rate of the

pashtuns is one of the biggest problems -- finding enough moderate southern pashtun to actually put into officer and nci training has been a challenge. -- and nco training has been a challenge. there are some things we have done to address this. we have had number one, aggressive training. it is a local simon for the police. they can work and live in the same area while the army is feel the nationally. the second thing is that we have opened up regional training centers for army and police in the south, which did not exist

just 18 months ago. we built a regional military training center down in helmand province. and we have police training centers that we have built in both kandahar and in most of our -- and lushtagar. we have had a huge uplift in southern pashtun in the last six months. the numbers are starting to change. initially, there have been more in the police then in the army. the third piece of this is trying to get after the literacy issue. two years ago, even though we

had been in afghanistan as a mission, as isaf and the u.s. into years, the nato mission is only 22 months old. one of the things we realize roadway was that literacy in afghanistan is really bunched at two ends of the age spectrum. the generation that went to school prior to the soviet invasion in 1979 have a degree of literacy. the age group you want in your sector you forces, 18-40, there is a 14% literacy rate. >> is that countrywide or just in the south? >> it is countrywide and is worse in the south.

the taliban and the areas that they took over, they shut schools down pretty thoroughly. what you have now is, when you take the few officers that you can glean have had high school

educations, you had 11% literacy rate for basic patrolmen and soldiers. any kind of functioning basic military and functioning or police auctioning is almost impossible. they cannot take a police report. if you continue with a crime and i cannot write it down, you think you'll like do anything about it. the state was not involved. we now have every single soldier and policeman going through 100% -- going through literacy training. that is starting to get some traction we have an accelerated program to take those southern pashtun at any level of literacy and train them. >> what percentage of the officers are they? >> i cannot tell you off the top of my head. i do not think i have the number. with the generals -- but the general balance is still about a third of the force, when you think about the total afghan forced, our southern pashtun. >> this seems like the iraq model when you have the sons of iraq. you can i get the ethnic group --, when you cannot get the

local ethnic group to join a national army, but you have a local force. how subservient are the local forces to the interior of afghanistan? one of the goals is to create a strong afghan government, a strong coherent afghan government. but on the other hand, you are building a local police or local militia forces. do they were together or is -- do they work together or is there a danger that these will really be separate and will go their own way and not answer to the national government? >> there are two different types of police in the local level. some one are the uniformed employees to go through for training. and the others are the local afghan police who are the ones that are similar to the sons of iraq who are trained by our special operations forces. to date, we are nationally fielding the uniformed police.

even the ones that are more regionally focused like the recruiting efforts of the southern pashtun, and i think we have seen good results in a tie back to the provincial government and then to the central grant. -- and then to the central government. i would argue that they really do not feel the effect of the central government. they identify more with their provincial government. the connection is really the pack. on the local police level, to date, most of our after local police are not from the southern pashtun areas. we have had great success was to bring the local leaders into the process of security, then the afghan local police are

defending their own homes. it has been effective. there are elements out there that call them after local -- that call themselves afghan local police that are not sanctioned. we are very clear that we do not pay them. we do not supply them. and we actively work to try to get them into the process. when we're talking after local police, the only ones that virtually certified by the ones that have been trained by isaf special operations forces. >> misses the summer that we -- this is a summer that we have seen some colossal incidences. we saw an attack at the intercontinental hotel and the british consul. we have seen were afghan forces cannot manage on their own. why should we feel any sense of confidence that these folks will ever be able to really deal with the insurgency? >> i respectfully disagree with you.

the intercontinental hotel was a huge success. it was handled solely by the afghan security forces. they responded in a very rapid manner. they dealt with it with a minimum of civilian casualties. they were professional in their approach. is the enemy able to execute spectacular attacks? yes. if we had that enemy here in the united states, they would be able to execute spectacle -- spectacular attacks. it is a war zone. are they able to fight and hold ground in cobble and kandahar? kandahar?kabul and canada ar

i would tell you that there are not. as a team, the enemy has been set on retreat. the ability to conduct this spectacular attack, anyone who is willing to blow themselves up can kill a lot of people. we have seen that in mumbai with the world trade center, with 9/11 coming up, with spain, in london. you will not be able to direct that fully with the security forces. a lot of that will really have to be addressed long term through the reconciliation process through education process. but as far as the ability to totally disrupt a society, the insurgent threat, the taliban, it is increasingly limited in

the places that they can do that in afghanistan. i think it is actually great. at the intercontinental hotel, the response in kandahar, that is a success story for the afghan forces. we did not have to go in and deal with it. they dealt with it. afghanistan will be needing in support for a long time. there will not have an air force that is fully functional for a number of years. but troops on the ground were largely afghan commanded and dealt with the situation. >> thank you. we will open to death. -- we will open it up. >> i think this is a pretty informed audience.

i think we would rather get your questions that have a dialogue. >> please identify yourself. and wait for the microphone. there you go. >> the question that after zero skiing is what about -- there is still violence there. thank you to the u.s. because they are now free from the taliban. but they do not have enough confidence in the government they have now because of corruption and security issues as well.

what is the future of afghanistan? >> that is a really broad question. when you say what is the future of afghanistan. i will come back to what i know. if you want to do a follow-up, we can go from there. what i know is that, from 2009 until now, everybody knows that the united states surged 30,000 forces to help the situation in afghanistan. what less people know is that nato surged 10,000 additional forces. we have 34 nations in nato training missions in afghanistan. what is often not known is that the afghan people surged 101,000 forces. it went from approximately a little 200,000 to about 300,000.

i have been gone for several weeks, so i can i give you the exact numbers. they surged by 101,000 and going to an additional 156,000 for a total of three and 52,000. a country -- a total of 352,000. a country not committed to its own security would not have been able to do that in the last three months. -- in the last 20 months. it would have been impossible. i think we are fielding an effective army and police that will provide the base line of security. they have challenges. we're not done with that. it will take all the way through the end of 2014 to build those sustainment pieces, logistics', complex capabilities like fire support, to get them

to where they can provide the baseline of security. from security -- obviously, i am a guy in uniform so you will hear my perspective -- but when we say that there will provide security, i do not mean that the war will end. i do not think the war will be over on december 31, 2014. it would just be that the afghan army and police will be securing their own people. and there will be occasional dramatic attacks that they will have to deal with. by and large, my age and i have driven all over afghanistan. in the last eight months, i have never seen so much economic activity. helmund province is a boom town. there is somebody putting of the business or putting up a building. people do not invest their own

money. this is not usaid. it is not ngo's. it is not the world bank. its afghan and some other neighbors. i am talking private entities, not the government. if you want to see where there is secret, follow the money. people do not make investments where their investments are at risk. and there is a great deal of economic activity flowing into it, especially into southern afghanistan. i am very optimistic. if the finish the mission that afghanistan will be able to continue to progress and right after this security situation. >> thank you. for success in afghanistan, it

depends on neighboring pakistan. >> a lot of that is a political-diplomatic, as well as a security situation. i will tell you that the new command team -- the focus of general petraeus was to get an afghan army and police fielded in the country and to turn back the insurgency, which i think he successfully did over the last year. ambassador crocker and general allan have almost like a laser light focus on the international community to get

the government of afghanistan and the government of pakistan discussing there'd security challenges. i would be disingenuous if i said that there was not a serious security charge, -- serious security challenge, especially in eastern afghanistan, that is to directly related to the problem across the border. as much success as we have had in the south, we're still really challenged in the east of the country. a think you'll see a great deal of both diplomatic and military effort go into that situation over the next six months or so. >> thank you. >> i have seen a lot of training is because i used to interpret for isaf. one of the concerns that have

always been there is the mutual trust between the security forces and isaf. there have been cases where someone in an afghan uniform turning against the isaf forces. i do not know if they have used a news step for mutual trust lessons and ideas. >> the is a really good question. the afghan army and police are amongst the people and so is the enemy. even in those places were the

enemy can troll back, this is a counterinsurgency. so the enemy is still out there most people. -- out there amongst the people. we recruit from the people. these are not mercenaries. as much as you try to fully vet 0 1/4, some bad actors come into -- as much as we try to fully vet the force, some bad actors come into the force. that is one thing -- vet the force, some bad actors coming to the force. that is one thing. another thing is a process that includes technological vances like biometrics and other techniques.

we have no problem meeting our recruiting requirements or even now our ethnic balance requirements. the police were actually over our numbers in basic patrol. now it is a leadership training issue, not a recruiting issue. in the army, we met our 6500 goal every month, including last month. but we turn re -- but return with 1400 people who tried to -- but we turned away 1400 people who tried to recruit and become or join the military. that was for a variety of reasons. some of them were medical and stuff. but there was a variety of bad actors. either they had bad

associations that were worries some more they had criminal pasts. -- that associations that were worrisome or they had criminal pasts. or issues of corruption. that was 1400 that were turned away through this vetting process. i think the progress is there and is providing a great deal of insurance and trust to the force, knowing that you have this active vetting process that is going on. but there are many thousands of members of the afghan army and police. scooter -- scattered throughout their, their may be a few bad actors. that is the second thing. the third thing is you have a lot of people who claim to be jihadis and insurgents at the moment they're getting captured or they start trying to fight their way out because that is a much more honorable way in their view to go than being an

out and out criminal. what we found in some of these cases is that these guys are not really insurgents. they are just out and out criminals. as they got caught in their criminal activity, they turned on either their ally -- their isaf ally or they turn on their fellow afghan members because the news was closing in on them. -- because the noose was closing in on them. i can tell you the stories of people who were insurgents or infiltrators. they are overplayed. but it is still a threat throughout their, months of people. there will be some folks to get through. >> can i ask you about the attention. do you have some figures about that? that used to be a big problem. >> it is still a challenge.

i would not say that it is a huge problem right now because we are meeting -- we get as many as we need to get to maintain the force. patricia has dropped. -- attrition has dropped. last month, some significant drops occurred, the last several months. we are at about two 0.2% per month. -- we are at about tw2.2% per month. on a national -- figure it over a year, that is a lot. 24%, 26%, that is a big turnover. on the other hand, there are a couple of factors in that. the biggest factor is that there is no law that requires you to say.

so it is not like, a few list in -- if you enlist in the united states army, you sign a contract and you cannot just leave whenever you want to leave. in afghanistan, you can just pick up and go home. often, what happens, to be quite honest with you, is to have mostly would -- mostly young men who it is the first time they are away from home and they do not like it. i remember the first time i was an enlisted soldier, i might have gone home, too, if i had not been contacted. -- if i had not signed a contract. but the real factors that drove attrition was really bad leadership, or pay, that living -- poor pay, and living conditions and less about the

fight. the afghans are fighters. they're not afraid to get into a scratch. -- to get into a scrap. so we turned to leader training. we are very focused on helping the afghan army and police develop confident, honest, good leaders. that has helped. we looked the army and police and the disparities in pay and we brought them up to the same pace as the army, which has helped on the police side. and then we work in incentive pay so that every soldier, once they leave the training base, is considered at war. so they get combat pay. it is a 360 combat in burma and. -- it is a 360 combat environment. and the facilities are much better than they were. there has been a huge investment in the facilities to make the living standards of the afghans better. all of those factors have started to drive down the attrition rate. it is not where we would want to it yet.

it is not a desperate situation because we are not losing -- we are able to meet our requirements. but like any big organization, there is an investment they have to make you cannot retain your people. >> how about all the way down at the end. >> i served in the marines and i worked for the former afghan ambassador. could you provide us with an update on the status of the afghan public protection force? as a understand it, they have three levels of training in the works. two week-program for petitioner is accorded -- for practitioner security. i just want to see where you stand or where do we stand with regards to the legal steps in creating the acgf as a state- owned enterprise?

>> i will digress for just a second. i am not budging your question. -- i am not dodging your question. my roll over there, we have about 6000 mtma trainers and a advisers in the country. i have 3000 deployed advisers. and in six commands around the country. my actual interaction with the appf is small. i will tell you that the efforts of to this point have been largely in clarifying the laws that will govern how the appf is brought on board and paid for. much may have changed in the

last three weeks to four weeks since i have been on leave and back here in washington, d.c.. when we left, the first real plus for appf were ongoing. -- first real classes for appf were ongoing. my understanding was that they were very well attended and seemed to be successful. the assessment of afghan justice department represents a truce came to observe it -- presented to us who came to observe it and the secretary of the interior -- i cannot give you much more than that. i think it is a unique program. there is nothing like it, really, anywhere else. we had the facilities protection force in iraq.

but even in those cases, they were truly paid by the government. there were not a corporate entity. so this is very unique. time will tell how it goes. initial reports from the training was that it was going very successfully. >> my name is frederick erickson and i am with the danish a messy. -- the danish embassy. i have two questions. with the after local police, that was the brainchild of general petraeus.

there has been some criticism of it and there were some press reports a couple of weeks ago that some units had been closed in central and northern afghanistan. do you see the role of the afghan police changing? the second question -- as isaf is beginning to scale down, what do you see the role of nato training missions as being? and how do you coordinate with national contributions? >> there is a lot there. it is actually all really good stuff. first off, let me commend the danes. the danes down in southwest have done fantastic. we encourage the danes to join the training missions in a more robust manner as they change

their national objectives inside afghanistan. we love them and they are great. as a matter of fact, mortar countries have been fantastic, great partners. the alp, i think it will endure because it is having great success. i think i said it before. there is alp that is certified and then there is alp that may be a bunch of guys with guns with somebody who may have connection in the government and they try to get themselves designated alp. we do not actually tolerate that. we'll support troop pay --

through pay and other supplies and resources and weaponsa those -- resources and weapons to those alp that are certified. those programs are highly effective and there will continue to grow. nobody is more effective than a motivated person defending their own home. while the rest of isaf is now drawing down,mtma is still growing. at some point, we will have some sort of decrease. but i think what the very dynamic piece in mtma is the vibrant participation.

we keep adding countries to it. we have 34 participating countries. we have moved into a phase of the mission where, as we transition over the basic training task over to the afghans -- we have trimmed about 4000 army from my instructors in the last year -- we're getting into more specific and higher level skills which mtma is uniquely postured to train. for instance, we are bringing some hundreds of personnel american over the next four months focused on stewardship. when i mean by that is that the afghan people have a very good sense of stewardship, taking care of their stuff at a personal and family type of degree.

what we do not have runout is a good sense of doing that at the institutional or national level. if you think about the governments that they had come especially since 1979 into the early 2000's, the government did not give you any pay, except for a problem. now teaching these forces to actually care for facilities, to take care of their equipment, to do networking, maintenance, logistics, medical, all of those kinds of stewardship of both people facilities and equipment -- all of that requires a different set of skills. we are starting to move out of the counterinsurgency police training while we still calling

it the foundation of this. we're getting into civil police training. before we had a six-week block of instruction for basic coin police training. have to be a policeman in a counterinsurgency fight. we have focused on civil policing. eventually, that will grow over many more weeks. it takes several months to train a policeman on how to understand and be part of the rule of law and justice. our nato partners and our bilateral partners are critical. the germans and the dutch are taking the lead of north in northern afghanistan on this

initiative for civil policing. we look at a lot of our mtma members either as a part ofmtma 4 in bilateral relationships with the government of afghanistan to pick up the load on that. we see a point not that far into the future where we will not have isaf-run facilities in the north of afghanistan. and then you have facilities supported by the germans with the support of other nations in participation with them in the police train. for while, you will see an enduring mtma native training mission going on. and then you see these other bilateral relationships, especially in the area of policing and the rule of law. sir?

>> good afternoon, sir. i am michael would occur. -- michael whitaker. i wonder if the afghan national security fits into the overall national equation. i'm curious on your thoughts and how to best utilize the afghan security and making sure they're not unchecked on doing their own missions, operating outside the rule of law, if you will. >> i think there's always concern to make sure that anybody we are partnered with in any place is working inside the rule of law. and respecting human rights and justice. as far as the mfd and -- the nds and their operations, we want them to operate

independently and be successful at it. some of this, i can i get too deeply into, but they have been very successful in ferreting out against the security forces of afghanistan, i guess the coalition, and against the people and government of afghanistan. i think of the nds has been not only a fourth mobile park, but a multiplier for good. anything that increases the aggregates to treat it for the people of afghanistan is a good thing. that said, it does not mean that we are not very cognizant.

there are actors out there in all military services who sometimes do not bind -- do not abide by the rule of law. in the cases we know about, we bring them to the attention of the government of afghanistan and we address them. >> can i ask a little bit of a big picture question? you mentioned some of the things you're expecting to happen in the next few months, in terms of transitioning. we have a conference coming up in november or december. can you give us a sense of how the overall strategy is? it seems that the reconciliation is not going very well. there is no greater love for president karzai then there was the last time we checked.

we do have ryan crocker who is a miracle worker, i know. but if you could give us a sense of whether the other pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place while you work on the afghan forces. >> i do think that the diplomatic efforts of reconciliation -- a couple of things. first, there is no way that they cannot be directly tied to the security situation and the sense of the enemy on whether the tide has turned. i think we're seeing a change regarding the internal afghanistan. i think that is largely because the enemy is back on the wheel

in southern afghanistan. at a much higher level, -- that is at the local level. at a much higher level, it goes back to the of a gentleman's question of pakistan and there has to be no long term agreement and reconciliation cannot concerts -- can occur without taking into consideration pakistan. i will throw that back on ambassador crocker. i think that he and general allen are focused on that. on broader issues of the effectiveness of the plan, how the government of afghanistan is doing, it is challenged. it is challenged largely for

the same reasons that we have challenges in the development of the afghan national security forces. there is a human capital challenge. you cannot have a whole generation of people at war and then expect that, somehow, you will recruit enough people that will then effectively be able to provide government. that is just something that will take time. in my opinion a lot of this will come bottom-up, not top- down. a gentleman before talked about his role as an interpreter. they have started out as interpreters a few years before. hongthat is how long term the bigger picture will improve. it will be individuals kicking in and investing in the country. i think this human capital

challenges not something you can fix overnight. and clap your hands and all of a sudden government will be perfect in afghanistan. to say anything else would really not be true. but i do think that we're seeing progress in areas. it will just take a while and the international community will have to make a long-term commitment. one last thing i will say on this issue of human capital, i believe that the president's initiative to drawdown, to start recovering the surge -- i am sure nader is it i'm sure and there will also start recovering forces -- will have positive effect on providing

more human capital in afghanistan. to some degree, just the numbers of people that we have their, historically to how things would normally sort themselves out -- i will give you an example. i use this example for the human capital issue. i am the guy who signs off on visa applications for interpreters. this is so they can either steady in the u.s. or come for a visit, whatever the case may be. we did about 38 rav4 went only to come home. -- 38 right before i went on leave to come home. i had nine doctors working as interpreters just that the nato training mission in afghanistan.

that upset me. i am having a distorting effect on what would normally be the economy or how things would sort out in afghanistan. on the other hand, what i will tell you, just like those two gentlemen who opened up a newspaper, at some point, as we leave, those nine doctors will get a micro loan and they will go into practice or work in a hospital. we will see, i think, a surge -- as long as city is maintained and we stick with the people of afghanistan and follow through with them -- i think we will see a surge of talent into afghan society that will change afghan society. right now, we pay the more than anybody else around.

once they have to give back into society to earn a living, they will have an impact. i think they will have an effect in government. i think it will have an effect in education. they will have an impact in business. they will have an impact in the professions. i think it will be a very dynamic time as long as we finish the mission in building at this afghan national security force and we continue and the international community continues. to support afghanistan. >> they could also pick up and leave as we leave. >> they could. what i have found is that the people of afghanistan love their country. they're dedicated to their country. if we continue the mission in

continue to bill about the capability for them is a cure their people, they will stick with the country and they will make that commitment to the rahm country and their own people. sir? >> retired from national geographic and spent 12 years in the army. with the contrary and congress that we have, how can we really say to the afghans that we will be there for them? i know it is not your political stance, but how do convince them that we will be there because we have done this once before? >> it depends what you mean by saying "we will be there with them." i do not think we will be their

past 2014 in tens of thousands of troops. i see a consensus of informed political leaders that cannot to visit afghanistan, and i will not name names, for the department of defense, from the administration. they understand. they are smart people and understand the history of the region. they know what happens when and much less capable force had their funding cut out from andrneath it in the 1990's 9/11 anniversary is coming up. a plane flew over my head and

hit the pentagon. we know the result of what happens. i do not believe that the kind of man right now in washington, d.c., that we will not pay and a run. i think we have a mandate to find ways to be much more efficient and bring the costs down to maintain this force overtime. this goes to costs. we have spent a ton of money on infrastructure and we are very concerned about their ability to maintain the infrastructure. not just for my money

standpoint but from a technical standpoint. their technical costs of not fully developed yet. that is one reason we're bringing in all of these stewardship people to train them. one thing that we found is that we were not very wise in how we did construction in afghanistan. we built to osha standards, western standards, western-style sinks, things that just did not match their culture and were really sustainable for the long haul. what we started doing, at least for the last one year or so, is starting to build more in the afghan style and culture.

what does that mean? 125 degrees in hellman. we are down there. we have gone from building these western style building to building the adobe-style that they're used to with it the type bricks they make then with the mud walls, narrow windows, their style with, what i would call, technological improvements. they show would in the bricks. we gave them reinforced steel to put down better cement. it is much cheaper to make it come a very easy to maintain. the first thing in afghan does is put up a wall. they know how to build and maintain walls. we walk from inside, where it is 125, no power, no electricity, and it is 80

degrees inside of this adobe building with no fans, nothing. we should have been doing that for 10 years. we did not open up our eyes. we think building in a style that is adapting to the local capabilities and also to the local culture will be better. we stopped putting in early big air conditioning h v ac units and we started putting in fans. out at the remote police stations, we have put in solar panels in a country with a 330 days of sunshine. they will provide the energy that you need for that police station and you will not have to bring in a wheel or have generators to maintain. you just have solar panels. it is a much different way of

doing business. we think it will crush down the costs and we will get them down to basic, bare minimum. it is still a significant amount of money for a country that has their own economic challenges, but when you think about the investment already made in afghanistan and with the costs and results would be of letting the security situation deteriorate, we think it is worth the long- term investment for america. >> i wanted to follow up on your comments on human capital. as you know, women are an integral part in the future of afghanistan. as i look over your shoulder, i see a female police officer on the power point. i wanted to get your

perspective on it for information about not only the participation of women in the security forces and their integration but also police sensitivity training. a lot of the narrative or a rationale for overturning and fighting the talent and including -- taliban included teiheir view on women. >> there are three or four things. we have a very impressive recruiting program. we are more successful with the police and the army. mainly because it is a cultural thing. you can remain local and be a woman police officer. in a cultural standpoint, the

idea of searching, so half of your population or more are women, so the afghans get it. they do not want men searching women. it is easier to get support from the afghan government and local leaders to support women into the police force. a little tougher into the army. if any of you want to take a trip, we should go down to san antonio. we have the first four afghan women pilots who will be and areg to fly mi-17's finishing up their english training because they need to learn the english before they can get the rest of the instruction. we have women pilots. we also recently graduated a class of the officer candidate school for women. we have been extremely successful, especially in

recruiting women for the border police. what we have bounded is that we did a variety of women, and a lot of war widows who come in. in the north, i won't get into specific names of leaders, but there was a group of women who were police officers. a local police leader was going to come speak to them. i think she thought he were to go in there as lord of the manner. they jumped on him asking about child care, better facilities. it is almost like they had a

woman's union. he said we needed to give them what they need so now they have child care and better facilities. they are no shrinking of ts. enc our numbers are not where we would like them to be, but they are getting better. every soldier and a policeman, besides the fact that they are getting a literacy training, they also learn the constitution and that part of their role is to respect the rights of all afghans including the part of the population that is female. that has been a positive factor. when you recruit a woman, you get the whole family.

it opens the door for them to send someone in for military police training. we actively trying to make sure they are supported. the last thing is empowering women but not directly in uniform. before the soviet invasion, they had an extremely vibrant kind of cottage industry, the textile industry. afghan women mostly ran them. in most islamic countries, there is no problem for a woman to be a businessman. these textile industries were very successful in they exported out of the region one of the things that we did at nato training using techniques like we have here set aside is to get

contracts to help women get textile companies up and running. every piece of the afghan uniform is produced by afghan- owned companies. they do not come from outside anymore. if you years ago they came from china and other places. they are now produced locally. most of them are owned by women. that is having a dynamic effect on the local economy, especially in trouble. -- kabul. >> are you getting pashta women to join? >> some. more in the bordeaur police.

it goes to the issue of searching. men do not like it. it is a protection thing. they do not want their women searched by other men. that was the hope to get them in, then we work from there. just like we would lag behind it. two years ago, frankly, the enemy held hellman and cantar -- khandahar. now they are recruiting more southern men. eventually more women will be involved. >> mark cramer.

i have a couple of questions and comments under my sergeant major. you mentioned the economic and small-business peace. one thing i would add to it is one i was there in 2005-2006 was of the road and litter. if the streets for kept clean, security people could be on the road and be safer. once that goes down and construction goes down, i did not like going into that area anyway. bad things. that was inconsistent bad thing. on construction, i am glad to see what is being done, which is what we were saying back in 2005, but at the same time, for certain buildings, we're going

to need to it here to certain u.s. standards. is that being done? , centers come and tell centers, information-sharing centers -- comm centers, intel centers, those types? they noced there was a reluctance. >> and those are being built by the u.s. army corps of engineers or the air force engineers. what i am talking about more is the tactical infrastructure or the basic training infrastructure as the regional military training centers or tactile infrastructure work at a local police stations or in the field enforcement. for some of these higher level facilities, hospitals, intelligence centers, and so

one, those are still u.s. army corps of engineer projects. five years ago, i would say most of those facilities under the corps of engineer program would is orbeen built by pakistan i someone outside of afghanistan. most of them today are being built by afghans. it we have reinforced the entire industry of construction. we have problems getting afghans to do our stuff because they are now too busy. they would build a wall, lay a foundation, and we would tell them to rip it down. they would work with our engineers until they learned the technique and got it going. now they are saying they need us to build something and they want to do it in two months.

what did they busy doing? busy building a factory here, a business there. we are building to those standards, but most of them are being built by the afghans now, which i think is a great improvement. >> they are building them, but we want the information sharing standards. >> i would say that those are fully vetted it to be built that way. >> on the human capital side, with the group that we worked with, they were all [unintelligible] there was a refusal by the u.s. to teach us.

in working with the afghans on getting the u.s. literacy rate up -- >> that is a challenge, to be honest, which is why we have a as interpreters. the afghan hands program has been wildly popular. they go into intensive language training and then they eagerly go into a school environment and then they go forward to afghanistan come into a tour, then their return, go back to more intensive training, work on policy or planning, then their

return. that was an initiative largely generated by general mcchrystal before he went to afghanistan which is now having great effects. for instance, one of these afghan hands is one of my lieutenant-colonel is out in the west. what i had him doing is he goes out on a regular basis and works because he speaks both dialect's. i do not know how well, but he does. he will get out there and talk to the local police chiefs and engage with them to try and get them to send those who were on the payroll back for training and convince them that they will actually get people back. they will not be pulled by someone else. it is highly effective.

he also engages with them to look at what is working and what is not. the feedback that comes back in, we learn. i am sorry. i would be totally disingenuous if i told you that 150,000 nato forces will learn it. to be quite honest, i hope we are not in afghanistan long enough for that many americans to learn the language. i do think there has been an intensive effort to get some americans and some members of isaf trained on it at a level that is appropriately. >> i just have one last one. the joint training between the police and the security forces.

in the u.s., we have the wall that exists between law enforcement, intelligence, and basic training. what is being done to assure that it is not being set up by us with an afghanistan? >> a couple of things. number one, there is a portion of afghanistan that purchased the gap which is these civil order please. they're trained by our italian friends, spanish, iranian, frankly because we do not know how to do it because we do not have it in america. we do not have a gendarmerie.

you have a force that bridges between the police and army. the europeans to the training and they are outstanding and. i wish we had another thousand to be honest with you. we could do it that much faster. functional skills, we share of lot. police medics get trained in army centers. drivers' training is done in army centers. we're taking a hard will look at logistics' because afghans do a way that will evolve in the way that is totally different. training the army and police to gather on logistics'. there are certain skills that we do not want policemen doing, like artillery and mortar.

we will not give it to them. that training will be segmented and stay with the army. there was a gentleman down here. >> and has been reported that to maintain the afghan national security forces that it will cost $8 billion. they seem confused about where the $8 billion figure comes from. they believe it is a very high number. could you elaborate on the details of the 8 billion? >> i cannot elaborate because i do not know where the figure comes from. here is the problem with stuff moving back and forth between afghanistan and washington, d.c., before policy decisions

are made. there are numbers being thrown around that are based on courses of action that never became policy. you have a course of action that might have had a dollar billion sustainment tag before anybody hit any real number crunching. before a policy, size of force, and what they would have from an equipment and infrastructure standpoint, and the number probably got out there and it may be on a slide. i have also seen numbers that are much lower that do not have any actor. right now, we do not know the exact number because the policy decisions, other than the president's, to go down to 3 and

50,000, the u.s. would commit to the growth of the force of two -- up to 352,000. until we get a handle on the infrastructure, we do not know what the cross section will be. yet what really sure the commitment from the border international community will be. i agree with the administer that it is a high number. it will be much less than that. how much? i do not know. i am not keeping something in my back pocket. i do not know when i would argue that there are still policy decisions and guidance we have yet to get that will drive that number.

some of it has to do with the disposition of the forces and where we are from the standpoint of reconciliation in 2014. if anybody tells you that that is a number they are talking out of their hat because nobody knows. i will say it will not be cheap, but i do not think it will be anywhere near $8 billion. >> the figure for this year is $11.60 billion. >> that is different. he is talking about paying for salaries and sustaining the security force overtime. we are in a building stage. it is actually $12.80 billion for 2012. we are in the construction stage, building facilities,

building equipment, generating forces. we are still in a growth stage until late next year. >> do you know how much of that is the salary? >> good question. i cannot answer it. it is a very small portion. the large majority of the money is to go construction and the feeling of equipment. -- is the physical construction and fielding equipment. the next is a combination of sustainment costs. the $12.80 will drop like a rock because we are basically finished in 2012 generating the force. but with the exception of the air force which will grow out for some number of years, but

largely the afghan infantry and police force will warned in the by this time next year. we have about 10 more minutes. do we have any more questions? >> i have a question about police training. i just wanted to get your update on what the prospects were. >> i am not following. >> there were reports earlier that some of the contractors involved in the police training were not performing well and there are issues about some of the civilian support in terms of contractors support. i just wanted to get an update. >> there are a lot of dedicated

contractors in afghanistan. they are good people. they are also fairly expensive. one of the initiatives in the native training for afghanistan and why we have worked so hard to expand ourselves out was to drive the costs down. we have saved hundreds of millions of dollars by cutting back on the contracts. when ntm-a stood up, all of the police training was being done by contractors and go very little of the training is now done by contractors. by this fall, what you will have as almost all of the actual training done by afghans, ntm-a

uniformed personnel, and they will be employed in areas like logistics' advisor or advisor to the commander on management of the facility. there are really there just to fill out around the edges. and some of our facilities, i got there and it was 100% contract police training. the number of contractors has dramatically dropped. if you want, you can probably reach out to us later when we give the specifics. a lot of the contract training was good, but it is better when

they are being trained by the italians or u-pol. that is just the way it is. it is better training to more professional, higher quality. also, as we move away from calling policing and training to civil policing, then we will lean much more on our nato partners to do that training. anybody else? >> i just had a quick question. you had mentioned the indian involvement in the economic growth in afghanistan. q talk more about their involvement in some of these

security forces, if any? -- could you talk more about their involvement? >> they are not involved. >> was their consideration at one point? >> i cannot talk to that, because i do not know. if so, it was not while i have been there. i think there has been a very active indian economic support to afghanistan. i will tell you how you can tell. and yourough kaubul can see the advertisements of women who do not have their heads covered. they are not pakistanis. they are indian companies. india is investing, and i thank you, a lot in their economic development. i can really speak to the

government of india, but the people of india. >> you raised to the neighborhood issue. so i will ask the i ran question. -- iran question. if you to talk about security. they are playing various sides of the fence in there has been a troublesome uptick. what is your sense of what the iranians are up to? >> let me separate the iranian people and businesses from the iranian government. the iranian people and businesses have a long term economic relationship with the people of afghanistan, especially western. i think that, by all measures, that is a good thing. it is a good thing for the people of afghanistan, a good

thing for the people of iran, and good things for peace and democracy if that is going on back and forth, especially if we have a democratic country in afghanistan. i in limited to a degree in what i can say. it is troubling, some of the weapons we have found in afghanistan and some of the munitions we have found that clearly have their source. this is nothing that general allan r. petraeus will say as troubling, and that's all i can say. >> final question? go for it.

>> my question is on security for the international community. they are asking people now what can you give them as far as safety is concerned? >> what i would say is the fact that they are asking that question is a sign of success. two or three years ago, in large part to the country, they would not even be there. the enemy had the countryside. the fact that they are there and are now looking at the types of guarantees they can get for securities means that largely

they are secure and now they are wondering how the security will be sustained. those questions are actually a very good indicator of progress because there would not have been anybody they're asking those questions a few years ago. the second thing i would say is that the war does not end when isaf transitions to the government of afghanistan. i wish it did. i do not believe that will. nobody is promising that there will not be war in afghanistan. to have a in national security force, army and police, supported by the international community, which will hold its own and make sure that parts of the country do not fall back into the control of these terrorists in insurgent groups.

the best in would be effected our mean and police with an active population -- it would be an ineffective police. the best intelligence you get comes from the people. they know who the bad guys are. they can help to do that. that being said, again, any time you have an enemy that is willing to blow themselves up and take people with them, it will happen. the afghan people are pretty tough people. they had a horrendous attack at the intercontinental hotel.

commandos responded, businesses and life went on. there were the attacks in khandahar. the explosions happened. life goes on. commerce continues. people continue. it does not make it any less tremendous. -- horrendous. i do not see people packing and leaving in waves. the same thing, the spectacular assassination of and a police leader, capote you did not see an exodus from northern afghanistan. people are tough. when you have the opportunity to make a lot of money, for instance the people from india and other countries in america because there's great economic

potential, they will factor that in, pay the costs, the premium for security, and they will keep pushing. that is the way of the world. there you will not get perfect security, but i think you'll continue to see progress, especially from the bottom >> very quickly. we are just about out of time. >> my suspicion is that the chinese will want to invest when things are settled. they are pretty conservative in their approach. i have not seen a bunch of chinese roaming around in afghanistan. have you seen any? i have not. they may be around, but they do not know where they are.

i am not seeing a lot of chinese interference. >> thank you so much. this has been fascinating. we appreciate everybody coming out today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on "newsmakers," discussing the economy and jobs. the jobs ohio plan and economic issues, as well as his view of the obama economic initiative in advance of his speech on thursday. "newsmakers" today at 6:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span. >> machiavelli has become an adjective. there are many people in this town who would like to have themselves described as a machiavellian. secretly, at the dark of night, they have it next to them, but not too many people would call themselves machiavellian. >> his name is synonymous with the senate vote scheming in the pursuit of the power. arguing his theories may have been a response to the corruption around him. 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> tom keene and lee hamilton discuss the state of national security joined by fellow commission members to talk about the success of the commission and recommendations that remain. the bipartisan policy center is hosting this in washington, d.c.. it is one hour, 40 minutes.

>> i am sorry if you do not have seats. it is great to have so many people here. i know they have toiled diligently to reshape our homeland and national security institutions. the challenges to improving the agencies are not just theoretical. you have been in those battles. we are fortunate to be joined by seven of the 10 9/11 commissioners who have made an indelible mark on history. their report and recommendations are in example of the bipartisan collaboration that our country needs more of in other areas. the commission is unparalleled in the number of changes that were adopted as a result of their recommendations.

it they worked with their parties and staff to pass landmark legislation in the 2004 to restructure and the most significant transformation since world war ii. the entire list of the visor's can be found on the inside cover. if you have trouble seeing the chart appear on page 10, there is a full chart in your report card. in addition to those advisers, they consulted with current officials. i would like to recognize the invaluable assistance or mike in compiling this report. we will then turn to a moderated

discussion to get the commissioners thoughts on what remains to be done. we are pleased that and compton will be our moderator. we will then call on you for questions. we hope to wrap up around 11:45 a.m. and now i will introduce tom kean and lee hamilton. together, they were the cochairs of the 9/11 commission. please welcome them. [applause] >> this is a very special occasion for us. this is the first time in a long time so many of us have been together.

we established a good working relationship and darn good friendships. it is special to date have you all back. thank you again for an amazing, amazing job. 9/11 was a day when violent islamist extremist hijacked four commercial planes turning them into weapons killing nearly 9000 people and the world changed. these attacks exacted devastating toll on the many families, the families of 9/11, tarp government, the private sector, and our daily lives. -- our government, the private sector, and our lives. it is difficult to comprehend all of the ways that our lives has changed it. the most visible are the airport screening protocols come up being asked to report suspicious activity, drone strikes, in the less notorious

changes are even more dramatic. we have seen the largest reorganization of the intelligence community since 1947. the intelligence budget has doubled. the terrorist threat has changed as well. unlike 2001, we must be concerned about americans such as paul jockey -- al-awlaki. muslim american youths are being recruited to fight in somalia. americans are recruited in internet forums, nadel hassan in fort hood texas. the self-radicalizatiojn is more

difficult. after a 20-month investigation, the commission made 41 recommendations to try and improve security. they were endorsed by both presidential candidates at the time and almost every single member of the u.s. congress. as we reach the 10th anniversary of those attacks, it is appropriate to reflect and take stock in where we are in trying to reform national security. what do we have yet to achieve? today, we release a report looking at the 9/11 recommendations. the good news is progress has been made and a good many of those recommendations, among them, the transformation of the intelligence community, and breaking down the barriers that were so costly in information sharing.

legal policy and cultural barriers create serious impediments to information sharing and prevented 9/11 attacks. therefore, a number of specific recommendations to try and improve information's sharing across government, within the government, and among authorities who are allies. it is not perfect, but it is better than it was before 9/11. among the things that facilitated the capture of bin laden. we highlight nine unfinished recommendations that demonstrate we are not as secure yet as we can or should be. we urge immediate action to complete their implementation. first of all, let us talk about unity of effort.

this is critical. everyone has to work together, someone has to be in charge. a well coordinated response will save lives. in nation that is not fully prepared for the size and complexity of 9/11, neither was it prepared for katrina. we will find how well we responded to the latest hurricane. there are many metropolitan areas where agencies who respond to disasters of the zero have not solve the central -- solve the problem of who is in charge? this can result in confusion at the scene and can cost lives in the future as it has in the past.

radio and opera ability. -- inoperability. if we're going to have radio between the first responders, we need to have that communication. this one still has not been implemented despite the lives at stake, but it has been stalled over allocating the spectrum to public safety for a nationwide network. efforts to achieve a unity of efforts for the emergency communications have to be exhilarated. when firemen cannot talk to a policeman or rescue workers, medical personnel, people die. they died of that because of 9/11, katrina, and they will die in the future unless this particular problem is not solved. congressional reform.

we often say that congress implemented all of the report except that concerning themselves. we felt we issued a report that strengthening congressional oversight was very difficult, we know it was difficult, but it still has not been done. it has to be done. this would avoid what exists now with almost 100 committees and subcommittees that the dhs sector reports to. that is confusion. it is not oversight. it makes a dysfunctional and it means the homeland security department spends time preparing a testifying instead of preparing s, its prime job. we also recommended a joint bicameral intelligence committee in each body was

appropriating authority. the basic issue here is that intelligence committees do not control the purse. the agency is listed are those who do control the purse. currently the house and senate appropriations committee, through the defenses of committees and the dod budget, for a minimum separate intelligence community should be established to find the intelligence community. i would now like to introduce my co-chair, lee hamilton, an extraordinary individual who has done so much for this country over so many years. it is my pleasure to work with him. we would not have the report we do if it were not for him, so thank you very much. [applause] >> bui morning and thank you for coming. i recognize many in the audience today who have contributed

hugely to the homeland security and national security of the united states. just one quick snapshot about tom kean. in the very first meeting we had come after he had been named chairman, and i was named vice chairman, he said, "lee, we're going to make every single decision jointly." i had come out of the congress where the chairman has all of the power and the ranking member has none. what an extraordinary overture tom made at the outset which was one of the principal reasons the commission was able to reach a bipartisan agreement. tom's leadership was just super. civil liberties and the executive power. we recommended that the civil

liberties and privacy oversight board should address privacy and literary concerns across government. five democrats and five republicans felt strongly about this recommendations. since 9/11, they have received expanded authority to collect information and to conduct surveillance. even if the powers are being employed in a careful way, respectful and civil liberties, the history of the abuse of such powers should give us pause and make us commit to ensure that mechanisms are in place to protect our liberty. a robust than physical board can help reassure americans that they are designed and executed with up the pro -- without the minds involved. the board has been dormant for more than three years. today, on the two of the five members of the board have been

nominated and that none of them confirmed. the remaining three should be appointed and confirmed immediately. the director of national intelligence committee establishment of the director of national intelligence and the national counterterrorism center to coordinate the activities of the intelligence community represented major progress in intelligence reform. the last six years, have increased information sharing, improved coordination among agencies, sharpened collection priorities brought in additional expertise into the analysis of intelligence, and further integrated the fbi and to the intelligentsia effort. it still is not clear that the director is the driving force for intelligence and depression that we had envisioned. there have been four in six years. and there is also ambiguity

role. the dni's further clarity is needed, which can be done by repeated declarations that they are the unequivocal leader of the intelligence community. the third is biometric entry/exit. we recommended the government establish a comprehensive biometrics system to attract foreign nationals that enter and leave the country. the department of homeland security has deployed a system that checks all individuals to arrive at the u.s. borders. they insure they are who they say they are and helps prevent known terrorists from entering the country. the exit portion of the system has not been completed. we do not know with any certainty who has left the

country or who remains here on an expired be said. -- visa. that would help to them searching for two of the 9/11 hijackers who had overstayed their visas. next come a standardized secured ideas. 18 of the 19 hijackers obtain the 30 state issued ids which enabled them to more easily board planes on that dreadful morning of 9/11. due to the ease with which fraud was used to obtain legitimate her identification to help them in bed and assimilate in the u.s. for the purpose of carrying out a terrorist act, the 9/11 commission recommended the government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. in 2008, detailed regulations were issued and setting

standards and benchmark for driver's license and issuance. however, the state compliance with dhs regulations for more secure driver's licenses has been delayed now until 2013 by dhs. this delay in compliance creates vulnerabilities and makes us less safe. no further delays should be authorized, and the deadline should be accelerated. next is transportation security. with significant federal funding, tsa has increased screening. unfortunately, the explosives detection technology it lacks reliability and is lagging in its capability to automatically identify concealed weapons and explosives. explosives.