are populated. we are welcome. they like us. they want us there. but we have to find a new place to base our marines. the new location up north is unreal. it is far too costly. it is not going to happen. we have to be honest. id is not going to happen. we have to find a different path to relocate some of our marines from that facility where they currently are. there are some suggestions that we have made to the pentagon. i would hope that secretary leon panetta and i think you were referring to his visit to japan will tell the japanese we are very close allies. whatever we are going to do, we are going to do to get their. this will not be a unilateral shift of the u.s. we have a plan that is unworkable. it is simply too expensive.

we ought to be honest with each other. for some reason, it is difficult politically and i am not sure why. i do not know why it is difficult politically to say that we agreed on a plan. hey, it is not working. let's change the planned. there is a sensitivity. who goes fst? this is an ally facing a common problem. it is not such a problem. people are trying to solve the location problem of the marine's. number one, we should deal with it frankly, together, not unilaterally, and be honest about the impossibility of our current plan. >> the gentleman in front here.

>> senator, based on your long experience and six visits, what do you say is a possibility or how do you see of the possibility of persuading the pakistanis to come along our way. when we were dealing with the soviet union into the arms control business, we knew we could not force them to do ything but we found a certain pressure points that we could apply. what pressure points do we have to apply against pakistan to come along, persuade them to come our way? >> if they see the relationship

between us and them as a plus, either economically or militarily, that relationship cannot be normal as long as their land is used as a base of attack against us and the afghans and the coalition. that is number one. number two, there is a significant amount of support that we provide which is in jeopardy because of this threat from their territory against our troops. that support is on hold essentially. there are different forms of. in general, the kind of financial support is on hold because you cannot have a relationship where we are supporting a country that is actively as well as passively both helping to kill our troops.

our troops are being killed by folks who have a safe haven in pakistan. when the government will not even speak out against that let alone take them on which makes it impossible for us to continue the economic and military financial support in a normal way it. that has been put on hold by the administration. ultimately, it will be their own self interest, the perception of whether or not they can distinguish between the terrorists who attacked them that they obviously go after and the terrorists who attacked their neighbors. if they think they can be safe from a threat from that kind of terrorist, i think they are wrong but they will have to make that judgment themselves. >> there is time for two more questions.

the gentle man in the second ro today's event has been on the record. >> mike costa, recent retiree. >> we miss you. >> very nice to see you. >> this muste a sign of the times. not a single question on iraq. the ultimate numbers next year will probably be diminished from the numbers that some had anticipated. is there anything you can tell us about how that negotiation is going now? in the best guess on to win the defense authorization bill will be on the floor? >> the first answer is easier

than theecond. [laughter] amazing to be able to say that a qution about iraq is an easier question to handle then the defense authorization bill. that is the situation in the u.s. senate. in terms of a iraq, apparently the discussions continue. i think we should make a clear that there is a finite point where we have to say, ok, this is not going to work and we are going to pull our forces out including the trainers that we are willing to keep their, providing that we can protect them from being covered by -- been prosecuted under an iraqi law. we will not allow our troops to be put in that situation. that is the sticking point apparently. i do not think it is a good idea for us to be pleading with iraq to ask us for troops to stay.

we have been in the position -- it looks as though that we are hoping that they are going to be making this request and we are hoping that certain elements of their political world will join in the government requests. will some of the shi'ite groups join in on the requests. we should not be pleading them to ask us. i do not like to be in that position. providing we are not in combat, that we are there for training purposes for a limited number of troops. we ought to give them a clear deadline on its. i am glad that we are pulling out almost all of our troops. by the way, for my republican friends who criticized president obama for setting deadlines in afghanistan which was wise to do for the reasons i mentioned, this deadline in iraq was a president bush deadline

for the record. i did not want to end on a partisan note. the second question, the sticking point is if there is language in that bill relative to the handling of detainees as to whether their detention will be by the military or civilian authorities. whether or not federal courts are going to be available for the trials of terrorist it. last night, we defeated an effort that was almost totally partisan to deny prosecutors the use of federal courts for terrorist it. we defeated that effort. two republicans joined to say that we ought to be able to use our federal courts to try terrorists. that issue was resolved last night.

but the issue that is holding up the defense authorization bill is not a matter whether federal courts will be available for the trial of terrorists. the issue that is holding up the bill is who will detained and whether or not terrorists must be detained by the military or whether or not civilians can continue as they have in the past to detain terrorists and to interrogate terrorists. we worked out a compromise that i will not go into which i thought was a fair compromise which has language in there that the administration does not like which sets categories of

affairs of what the al-qaeda a people affiliated with al-qaeda must go through the military detention system. they do not like that. they wrote in a waiver so they can waive that. the administration is apparently not satisfied with that weaver and that thin has mischaracterized it. i know there is a reporter in the room that wrote a story today or last night where the administration has inaccurately characterized our bipartisan language in our bill which contains that flavor for the presidentontending that language that he does not like and that is the holdup. the majority leader indicated to the white house that he is going to try to get that language out of the bill.

that is the dilemma that we are now in. you ought to have a question that we can end on a positive note. >> policy template for removing nasty dictatorship. a lot to discuss in a short amount of time. thank you very much, senator levin. [appuse] and indulging my many questions. i am pleased to announce next wednesday, october 26, a conversation with the, don general u.s. marine corps. thank you very much for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[genral conversation] >> the son of education committee, -- completed no child left behind. we talked with the capitol hill reporter about the pending bill. >> no child left behind was a bipartisan plan and was

championed by president bush and the late senator kennedy. they argued that state and get federal money should be held accountable for results. for the first time, states were required to test their kids, to set performance targets, and to work every year to meet their goals. in the nine years since, schools and teachers have complained that the goals are unrealistic and the sanctions that they don't meet those goals were draconian. there was a lot of pressure on congress to change law. >> what does the senate education committee accomplish? >> it is a serious retrenchment of the federal government in classrooms. no longer will the states have to set achievement targets for the kids. they still have to test them every but they don't have to have goals for achievement. they don't have to meet any goals, they won't face any penalties if the kids are not learning what educators think

they should be learning, and there -- originally, senator harkin wanted a teacher evaluation measure in there. he wanted to be able to tell good teachers from bad teachers and require the states to somehow measure their achievement. that has been wiped out of there as well. only 5% of the country's or performing schools will face some kind of federal oversight. that left five%, the lowest of the blows. there also -- and they're often called drop of factories. they would be subject to federal oversight but 95% of the schools, the government is hands-off. >> the obama administration had moved ahead on some policy changes. >> the obama administration was frustrated because this law should have been read authorized four years ago when congress did

not act. there was this pressure building up from the states saying that they can't work from all lots. --the law. obama directed arne duncan to change the law. we have 39 stutzman -- 39 states and the district of columbia that say they want out and that will cut the senate. they decided they did not want to be on the sidelines. they did not want the administration rewriting the law and that is why we saw all this action all the sudden. >> how likely is this new education measure to be approved by congress this session? >> i don't predict these things because it is pretty hard to tell. on the house side, the republican leadership has wanted to do reform of this law in a

piecemeal fashion. they have three bills that they got out of committee and only one that has the -- hit the house floor i don't know how capable they will be a ticking on a complete rewrite. we will see if this one gets passed on the senate floor. >> you can read her articles at washington post.com. >> next, president obama's announced that u.s. troops will be out of iraq by the end of this year. followed by a press briefing by national security advisers and live at 7:00 a.m., "washington journal." >> this weekend on c-span 2, live coverage from the texas book festival with juan williams on political correctness.

there will be other panels as well. look for the entire weekend schedule online at book-tv.org. >> next, president obama announces that all u.s. troops will be out of iraq by january 1. this formally ends the iraq war declared by president bush. here is that statement made in the white house press room. [inaudible]

>> good afternoon, everybody. as a candidate for president, i pledged to bring the war in iraq to an end to strengthen national security and to strengthen american leadership around the world. after taking office i took actions to remove all our troops by the end of 2011. the commander in chief insuring this successful strategy has been one of my national security strategies. last year i announce the end our combat mission in iraq, and to date we have removed more than 100,000 troops. iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country's 30. -- security. a few hours ago i spoke with the iraqi prime minister, and said the united states will keep its commended. -- commitments. he spoke of the determination of the iraqi people to force their own future. -- forge their own future. forward. today i can report that as promised the rest of our troops in iraq will come home by the

end of the year. after nearly nine years, over. for the next two months, our troops in iraq about tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. last american soldier will cross the border out of iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the american people stand united in our support for our troops. that is how america's military efforts in iraq will end. even as we mark this important milestone, we are also moving into a new phase in the relationship between united states and iraq. as of january 1 and in keeping with our strategic framework agreement with air, there will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. into the's conversation the

prime minister and i agreed that a meeting of the higher coordinating committee of the strategic from agreement will convene in the coming weeks, and i invited the prime minister to come to the white house in december. this will be a strong and enduring partnership with our diplomats and civilian advisers in the lead and will help iraqis strengthen institutions that are just and accountable. when will build new ties of trade and commerce and education that unleashes the potential of the iraqi people. we will partner and iraq that contributes to regional security and peace, just as we insist that other nations respect iraq's sovereignty. as i told the prime minister, we will continue discussions on how we might help iraq trained and equipped its forces, again, just as we are getting training and assistance to countries around war.

there will be some difficult days ahead for iraq's, and united states will continue have an interest in an iraq that is stable, secure, and self- reliant. just as the iraqis have persevered through war, i'm confident they can build a future or the other history as -- were the of their history s the cradle of civilization. here at home, in the coming months, there will be another season of homecomings. across america, our service men and service women will be united with their families. today i can say that our troops in iraq will definitely be home for the holidays. this december will be a time to reflect on all that we have been through in this war. i will join the american people and pay tribute to the more than 1 million americans who have served in iraq and we honor our many wounded warriors and the patriots and the iraqi and

coalition partners who gave their lives for this effort. i would note that the end of war in iraq reflexed a larger transition. the tide of war is receding. the drop down in iraq allow us to refocus our fight against al qaeda and achieve major victories against its leadership. now as we removed our last troops from iraq, we're beginning to bring our troops home from afghanistan, where we have begun a transition to afghan security and leadership. when i took office roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in both these wars, and by the end of this year that number will be cut in half. make no mistake, it will continue to go down. meanwhile, yesterday marked the definitive evan and the quest the definitive and of the gaddafi regime in libya. our military political role in

shaping a situation on the ground which libyan keep people can build their own future. today nato is working to bring this successful mission to a close. to sum up, the united states is moving forward from a position of strength. a long war in iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. the transition in afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home. as they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world, and as we welcome home our veterans, we will never stop working to give them and their families that care, the benefits, and the opportunities that they have aren't. -- that they have earned. this includes an listing our veterans in the greatest challenge that we now face as a nation, creating opportunity and jobs in this country. after a decade of war, the nation that we need bill is the nation that we will build, and it is our own, an america that

sees its economic strength restored. thank you very much. >> dennis mcdonough had reaction ---he president's speech

2001. >> thank you for being here this afternoon. we will continue with the briefing. i have with me the president's deputy national security adviser on my left, and on my right the vice president's national security adviser. they're here to take your questions about the announcement just made. after that, you can give your questions on that subject, and then i will remain to take your questions. >> nine years complete withdrawal -- this is a victory for the united states -- >> one of the more poignant moments was when president obama congratulated prime minister maliki and the people of iraq for getting to this moment. and the prime minister

congratulated the president for the troops and what they have done. the president said what we are looking for is an iraq that is as secure, stable, and self reliance, and that is what we have here. there is no question this is a success. >> specifically, long discussions covered issues of unity. -- immunity. has that issue been resolved? >> the present preferred was for the best relationship for the united states going forward. that is what we have now as a result of the work of our commanding general of there, the ambassador, and what we have done of the course of these last three years is indicate -- the president indicated his not only commitment to fulfilling that agreement, but his willingness to hear out iraqis on what of relationship they

want going forward. we talk about communities. -- immunity. the president will insist on our troops having what they need no matter where they are. the decision that you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his few and the -- his view and update prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want going forward. relationship is a normal rush of that is based on a civilian will have important security components as our relationships around the world have -- jordan, egypt, other countries that have security components. we had exactly what we needed to protect our interests, and the iraqis feel the same. >> are you confident that the iraqi security forces are very well equipped to take on these responsibilities without any further training?

>> we feel proud of the work that our guys have done, civilian and military, in training iraqis. they have worked together over the course of these last several years, not only trained together, but the ploy, a -- deployed. partner together, robustly, and as we have done this, over the course of the last seven or eight months, a full review of where we stand with iraqis, one assessment after another about the iraqi security forces came back saying these guys are ready, they are capable, these guys are proven. they're proven because they have been tested in a lot of the kinds of the tests they see going for. we feel good about that. home, major attacks continue in iraq. what prevented an agreement being reached from training? independent analysts said

trading was essentials to get the troops in order. >> it is important to point out that we have the capacity to maintain trainers. the offers of security cooperation in iraq will have the capacity to train iraqis on the new kinds of weapons and weapon systems that the iraqis are going to buy, including a portly the f-16's just purchased just about a month ago. but her you will see opportunities in naval exercises, a part in 80's and had an increase in the air force training. -- opportunities in naval exercises. security cooperation with the iraqis that we have with allies are around the war.

the suggestion that there's not going to be training is not accurate. >>[unintelligible] the main purpose the effort that we undertook over the course of not only the last several months, but also over the last several years, is the establishment of a normal relationship that allows them in the region of a considerable unrest of the moment to chart the kind of secure future they want. of an arrangement around in unity. and getting this kind of coal, fulfilling the circle of debt secured relationship, we got exactly what we needed. >> to the iraqis say that the same mission was accomplished?

>> does this leave an open door for iran to exert influence in iraq? >> as he sat now in 2011, after years of the kind of united international pressure that they have seen over the last several years, that kind of robust outcry over the kind of activity that we saw announced last week as it relates to them not living up to their obligations under the convention to which they are party to predict the elements -- you're seeing and around that is weaker and more isolated. we do not need to exercise our influence on those matters to iraq. we frankly deed that as a matter of course through the united nations by laterally.

so we are concerned about iran's and willingness to live up to obligations, be that on something as simple as protecting diplomats wherever they are serving. we of concerns about that, i do not have concerns about our ability to make sure the iraqis can exercise sovereignty they want. it is important to highlight one critical fact as we look at iraq's future. if you see the kind of increased production of iraq will production as usc of the next crest as you have seen the last few years, this is one indicator of that very few positive future of them. >> how can you be assured of the security of diplomats and contractors who will stay in iraq? >> it is something we are spending a great deal of time on, and we have insisted for our diplomatic presence -- we will maintain an embassy there.

we have embassies around the world. we have to assume a basic amount of protections for our people, and that is what we have communicated to the iraqis. we continue to insist that the iraqis help us in protection of our diplomats. as we look at that presence,we will ensure the kind of standard protections of our diplomatic personnel, to include marine security details, but we will also make sure that working with contractors can have the kind of protection they need. >> do you have an estimate of how many security contractors will be left behind? >> 4000, 5000, in the various forms of security that are left behind.

we have three diplomatic posts, basra, another city, and in baghdad. everybody has their security details. we will continue to negotiate this with iraqis, but we will make sure we have the other kind of presence we need, both as it relates to their fixed site security, and their ability to move around. >> was this five or six years ago there was concern that civil war was going to break out what concerns do you have about how secure the sunnis or kurds will in this new sovereignty? >> what you see is that politics has taken hold in iraq, and they are figuring out how to resolve their differences

through a political process. it is not always pretty, linear, but the work through their problems to the political system, and that has to get a lot of the fuel out of the sectarian problems. of course there continues to be a security challenge. if you go back to 2007, 2008, there were 1500 security incidents every week. now we're down to 100 per week. this has been sustained over the last couple of years. the bottom line is we think that because the iraqi security forces are increasingly competent and capable in dealing with internal security and because of the emergence of politics of doing business, the sectarian -- is unlikely to be lit again, the sectarian fuse.

>> 32,000 wounded. was this war worth it? >> history will have to judge that. i don't think any of us can judge that. what we can say is that our troops have performed remarkably over that period of time, and our diplomats are doing the same. the result is that today we are in a place where iraq is emerging as a secure, stable, and self-allied country, and that was the goal. as of the rest of what that is up to history. >> can i ask a question on pakistan. was there any reassurance from the pakistanis that they would stop me haqqani network? >> the secretary bus trip was a high-level trip that included many of our high colleagues from the national security council. others in the national security council.

we are appreciative of the secretary of leading this effort. secondly, the breadth of the delegation that the secretary led pakistan understand us _ not only the importance of the relation, but the importance we attach to our concerns about the concern is a tree should come -- the security situation not just in pakistan, but also in afghanistan. as it relates to the particular conclusions of the visit, we will leave that to the secretary and her delegation. but the president is obviously appreciative that the secretary led the delegation and a delegation, in its makeup and seriousness underscores the strength of our conviction about these matters. >> the mechanics, for people watching and trying to see -- whether families are home for the holidays. how will this happen and break down? how quickly will people get

home and be in a responsible way? >> i will leave it to the pentagon to brief about it. but i will make one comment. i happen to be in iraq over the weekend and happen to see some of things general austin and his team are a section waiting on the ground. absolutely unbelievably powerful demonstration allow our, not only our strength and capacity, military strength and capacity, but also commitment to making sure that we do this the right way. so, we are seeing every piece of equipment every closely accounted for. it is being accounted for. it is being then assigned to where it will end up. a degree of care for this and scrutiny to this effort that i think, as with the rest of this effort, but all of us very proud and, frankly, very appreciative of what they are doing. >> a quick follow-up of libya. at the video that appears that gaddafi was alive and injured,

then dragged around. after he was killed there was a lot of anger on the arab street about how it played out and now the u.n. is planning an investigating what happened. are there concerns about what happened on the ground in libya and are you going to back a u.n. investigation? >> bottom line is, this obviously has been a dynamic 24 hours. we are stillgetting additional information ourselves about what exactly transpired. we are in very close contact with our nato colleagues and i know there are looking at is today, so i will not get out in front. we always have concerns about exactly what is happening in each of these situations. frankly, our concern for the situation in libya is exactly what the president took the kind of bold and decisive action he took several months back. but the fact that i have

concerns does not lead me to want to get out in front of the facts, either. >> considering that you had a turkish troops having to chase kurds in iraq -- there has been a rise in violence inside iraq. what about it gives of the united states confidence you are leaving a more secure iraq's? >> the first thing i would do is this associate myself from the comments prepared two, at various times he had seen spectacular attacks across iraq. frankly, that is one of the techniques of some of the insurgent groups. we see they tried to do it once every several weeks or months to get attention. but the fact is, chuck, you can't say the numbers of attacks have gone up in iraq. it has gone dramatically down. as tony suggested, more than a even 15-fold decrease in the

course of the last couple of years. that is one indication of progress. the other, of course, is the capacity of the iraqi security forces. every study and assessment we saw in the course of the last several months came back with the same conclusion. these guys are very capable against the threat that as most present. 3, is the point tony made and the vice president has been critical in helping bring about, is politics has broken out in iraq and people are resolving the differences in the kind of political and democratic way that i think just a few years ago we all could have only hoped for, and obviously it gives us reason for great hope. >> the strategy in libya versus what we are seeing, the decisions made in iraq, versus the decisions that were made in yemen, for instance, fitting together in the obama doctrine? >> as tony said, historians

will be busy laying out a doctrine. but he is very committed to making sure we remain secure. and the threats to our security are different in every country. in fact, we have to be nimble enough to address those concerns with the ability that allows us to confront them but not get bogged down with any particular kind of threat. what we are seeing is a more dynamic threat environment. so, again, i will let the historians, the theoreticians lay down with the doctrine is but having worked now for the president for about five years, he does not take anything as a serious leg as he does, knowing what the threats are, identifying them, and then bringing overwhelming power to bear to neutralize those threats. that is going to be different in different countries. i think as you have watched over the last couple of years, he has not been bound up by a particular ideology, but rather

bound up specifically by his interest in making sure we neutralize the threats. >> can you explain to some of the critics of this decision how the administration will ensure none of the progress will be rolled back? >> i think the president indicated in his remarks, what we have seen is tremendous progress over the last several years by the iraqis. you see tremendous capability, not only in their ability to carry out security operations but also in their ability to carry out democratic and political operations, which is to say, they are much more interested frankly in a political resolution to their ongoing disputes. the other thing is we also have to recognize that that the president laid out in his speech in 2009 down at camp

lejeune, we set a very clear set of objectives -- an iraq that it is secure, stable, and self- reliant. that is exactly what we have. our ability to maintain a robust and diplomatic presence there, our ability to maintain ongoing training efforts with the iraqis, all of that will contribute to our ability to work with our iraqi colleagues to ensure that they can maintain the great gains they have made. but i also think the lesson of the arab spring it is also quite important, which is that representative governments that listen to their people and that conduct elections are ultimately going to be much more secure. i think in that regard, the iraqis have a leg up on a very dynamic situation. >> i think it is important to look back over the last three years, the president said he would do a number of things and he has done every single one of them -- at every juncture in iraq security has not gone

backward. we started out we had 150,000 american troops in iraq, we said we would be out of the cities in the summer of 2009, ending the not get worse, they got better. by december 2010 we said we would end a combat mission and get down to 50,000 troops, and we moved forward. the president has committed repeatedly to both fell in the security agreement and bring all of our troops home at the end of this year and we are on track. as we discussed, security incidents have gone down, not up. iraqi security forces have gone up and not down and politics has become the way to do business in iraq. for all of those reasons, we already have a track record to suggest that the security of iraq and move forward. >> has the u.s. scene uptick and violence are around the time of transition? >> what we have seen our efforts of extremists use this

period of dynamism and train to take advantage of the situation and to threaten our guys and the iraqis. what you are seeing is especially over the last couple of months, because of the great work of general austin and our troops, less and less successful in their doing that. frankly, i think you are seeing more and more frustration on behalf of iraqis because oftentimes what these extremist groups are doing when they are trying to threaten our troops is they are killing more iraqis. so, that all contributes to the kind of developments that make us feel as positively as we do about the situation we find ourselves in. but again, just going back to chuck's question, we will remain vigilant on this, as we have threats from southeast asia to north africa. the bottom line is, not only is it we have done what we said we

would do in iraq, the president has done exactly what he said we would do from iraq, the horn of africa, across the arabian peninsula, throughout south asia and all the way to southeast asia. so, we will stay on the offense on these set of threats, and also come in so doing, take advantage of the great opportunities out there at the moment. so, we feel very good about it, as i think you heard the president suggests. >> connie, over here. >> is the u.s. considering selling or leasing drones to turkey against the pkk, and helping iraq to defend its airspace?

>> on iran, the president has been very clear about what we expect from the iranians. i am not sure how you are characterizing might view of the iranian threat, but i just want to be very clear. we have big expectations that the iranians live up to their obligations in the international community, be that in human rights, nuclear responsibility, or be that even as something as simple as protecting diplomats. secondly, as it relates to turkey, obviously as you saw the president expressed significant concern about the attacks on southeastern turkey earlier this week. we are awe is sustained in close touch with our turkish allies but i did not have anything specific to announce right now. relating to iraqi air sovereignty, we will continue to work with the iraqis as it relates to the full range of security and training opportunities and the needs of the ss.

-- that they assessed that that have. we can do that fully in the context of fully normalized relationships as the president laid out a couple of minutes ago. >> the video conference, the poignant moment you spoke about -- it does not sound like the conclusion of the video conference was surprised. the president was preparing obviously for the conference. can you talk about why it was a poignant morning and what he talked about concerning his reflections. >> maybe tony has something more poetic than i do. but i just said i thought it was a poignant exchange because of what appeared to need to be genuine appreciation on behalf of the iraqi prime minister for all of the sacrifice. in fact, he called out all of the sacrifice that our troops and their families have, and our diplomats and families, have put on the line for iraq's future. that is not new to me as it relates to the president of the united states. he obviously has live best quite -- live this and expressed

its vividly on numerous occasions. quitebut i just thought it was an important moment where the two leaders expressed their view that having set out on this effort about three years ago, now they feel like they have got into a very important point where they can take this next that, pursuant to this agreement, but also continue a forward with the kind of robust partnership that i think they recognize our troops and diplomats have built over the last couple of years. >> does the president support the turkish incursion into northern iraq to? >> i am not going to get into the specifics on this, but i will say we obviously worked very closely with our turkish friends about their ongoing concerns from such attacks. we obviously designated a certain of the kurdish forces as designated foreign terroristi will not get into it anymore

than that. i will see what the coming days and weeks of all but we will remain in close contact with our service allies. >> you made reference at one point to iraqi oil. iraq and libya are very wealthy countries. will the u.s. asked for financial reimbursement from iraq and libya and what you see as future u.s. relations with syria now against hamas question and i can you repeat the last question -- syria and hamas? >> as for asking for reimbursement, i did not anticipate that. as it relates to syria and hamas, we have been clear about what we expect from syria. we will see whether after now several months of allowing themselves to fall into deeper and deeper isolation, whether they made the right choice. but i think the president has been quite clear on this, as has the secretary of state. >> what about hamas in regards to the prisoners 1?

-- swats -- swaps. >> i think jay has talked a lot of the prisoner remarks the last couple of days so i associate with his remarks. >> i question is a follow-up. are you offering new assistance to iraq or to libya in light of the announcement. if not, why not? >> we have a very robust security assistance program with the iraqis. it is textured and includes the kinds of things like military sales we saw with been f-16 purchase, but other pieces of it. that is a matter of public record. it is passed every year by congress. so, we anticipate that being a very important part of this robust and textured important security relationship going forward. as it relates to the libyans, we obviously continue to work with the tnc about what we expect from a representative government.

working with our partners and allies to indicate what kind of support we will provide in the future. but there is no significant changes in our assistance since yesterday. >> has he briefed any members of congress prior to this decision, and if not, why? >> we did brief members of congress. in number of us on the phone with senate and house leadership and other members to brief them on the president's conversation with the prime minister and to brief them on what the president intended to say. of course, over long over these many weeks and months we have been in regular contact with members of both houses. on iraq, what we were doing, and what we were planning, and the main point is that the president all along has been absolutely consistent in saying what he would do and doing what he said he would do, and that is

where we are today. >> was the speaker's office on the call? was involved in that? >> yes. >> protection for embassies, how many troops will be sent there to protect embassies? >> there will be no troops to provide security to embassies other than the standard marine security detail, which we have at embassies and every country in the world. other than the marine contingent that provides security, there will be no troops kept in iraq for security of the embassies. for the security of our embassy and two consulates, we will contract with security contractors to provide -- as i said again -- fixed site security as well as movement security when our guys go out and do their job in the country. >> [inaudible]

>> the president is working this and secretary geithner and we will let them work on that. >> the last two. >> the president is emphasizing the troops coming home by the end of the year. how many should expect to be redeployed may be in afghanistan? >> you heard the president's remarks underscore we are continuing in afghanistan but the number of u.s. deployed overseas has been robustly reduced. as it relates to the specific deployment schedules, i will leave that to the pentagon to brief you through the specifics of that. the fact of the matter is given that we are looking at dramatically fewer u.s. troops deployed overseas as a result of these, you can't extrapolate you will see a less robust

rotational effort. but again, i will leave the pentagon to come in. >> last one for these guys, and i will stay. >> thank you. i would like to ask both gentleman, the withdrawal of troops even by those who support it, nonetheless is questioned about giving the exact number of the troops leaving and when they will be gone, like telegraphing a message to possible enemies. what do you say about that criticism? >> i will try first. security agreements negotiated and signed in 2008 by the bush administration stipulated this date -- december 31, 2008 -- at the end of the military presence. so, that has been in law now or been enforced now for several years. so, it is difficult to rebut the proposition that this was a

known date. by the same token, i think individual decisions that our commanders are making are informed by their assessment as it relates to individual movements and security related there with, and we feel very good and frankly very appreciative of their efforts in that regard. >> no effort to contact the office of -- >> there was a call to many members of congress from both houses, including leadership. of over both invited. both parties. absolutely. >> the only thing to add dd other dates were well known in advance. it was well known we would be out of the cities and the summer of 2009 and the situation improved. it was long known we were going to change our mission in the

summer of 2010, ended the combat mission, and get down to 50,000 troops. again, security continued to improve. and there is something very important about the united states keeping its commitments. it sends a very strong and powerful message throughout the region inside iraq and countries outside of iraq. >> thanks, guys. next, your calls and comments on washington journal. that a hearing on concussions and student athletes. then the president and mrs. obama talked about employment opportunities for veterans. >> it is very obvious that with all the priorities we have and they're all worthy, until further notice, every decision the national government makes, every close call should be made

in favor of economic growth, every type to be broken in favor of growth in the private sector. >> he worked as an adviser in the ronald reagan white tests omb in the bush white test and implement its that because that produced a $1 billion budget surplus. sunday night, mitch daniels on his new book on "q &a" at 8:00. >> this morning richard cohen has the latest on the deficit reduction committee and efforts to reach a deal by late november. kea susanting talks about credit card debt and counseling programs for consumers and late jo,an schaffner discusses how states deal with the ownership of the exotic animals as well as welfare and safety concerns. "washington journal" is next. "washington journal" is next.