who have the greatest possibility of asking me easy questions -- [laughter] there we go. watch out for that guy. ok, go ahead. >> let me ask you a couple of things to introduce yourselves -- to be brief and to, if you would -- this is not meant to be a press conference, but a conversation. i will start in the back, right there on the aisle. >> calling the company paid out one at go back to the big gains of earmarks when you talk about the rebalance in asia, and talk about two things associated with that. how does that relate to the ability to execute this doctor? and what would sequestration due to carry that out? >> did you hear what just said? -- jessica said? [laughter] it is eight two-service approach.

not unique to the pacific, incidently. it is unique to, if anything, increasing capabilities, proliferation of technology, to a wide audience of potential adversaries who can cause us to have to stand off because of anti-access technologies, whether it is jammers, long- range precision munitions, a whole suite of technological capability s -- capabilities. air, sea, naval is listed under something i won't, the joint operational access concept. the chairman, in collaboration

with the commanders, as a concept to ensure it to overcome anti-access, and also anti-access in the lanham domain. -- land domain. ied's, for example, a way of denying us its symmetric access. join-operational access is 2 ensure freedom of movement as a military. air-sea battle is a multi- service approach. how would sequestration -- as i said, importantly, i guess not just asia-pacific trade -- it is not just asia-pacific. what would the effect of the sequestration be?

let me not talk about sequestration in particular. let me talk about budgetary issues in general. one of the things that i've tried to articulate some unsuccessfully, somewhat unsuccessfully -- you may decide i have moved a bit here in one direction or the other today. even if we did not have any budget limitations, reductions, constraints, whatever you choose, we would really need to change based on what we've learned over the last 10 years of war and where we see security -- the security environment going in the future could we ever tried to -- i say "we" -- we have tried to jump out to 2020, and decide what the threat environment with look- alike, and then determine what capabilities we would need to address it, and then look backwards at ourselves sitting

in 2012, getting ready to submit a budget that goes from '13 to '17, knowing we would have four opportunities over the next four years to build this force for 2020, against the strategy we conceived in the fall. the submission was just the first step in what will be four steps, because we will submit pom's, program offering memorandums. if we don't do it the way i just described, we will be doing this on an annual basis with no framework or idea of where we want to be added 2020. i said we were not going to talk about sequestration, but i have to mention it in the context of the question. as i stand here before you, we submitted the budget in february. it is in market right now in the

congress of the united states. i don't know what it will come back looking like. it is delicately balanced instrument. we try to balance projections and build the best possible force we could against the strategy we articulated. it will not comeback exactly as we submit it. it never is. but we are not finished yet with the fy13 budget. sequestration comes potentially on the heels of that. i'm not as old as i am about to sound. i looked it, but i am not as old as i am about to sound. wing walking was sport or carnival stuff, but the first rule of wing walking, walking on the wings of biplanes, was never let go of both hands at the same time, for pretty

obvious reasons. when people ask, are you working on sequestration, the answer is no, not yet. it is not done yet. come up short, i will get thrown off the wings. in the spirit of my air force brothers, i am following wing walking. >> oh, my. everybody is going to have to be brief, because there are 100 questions and the wo -- in the room. >> i'm just wondering, we have a lot of people who say that the pakistani isi was well aware of osama bin laden's presence at there. how do you address working with them as a partner, and how that would lead into the green on blue attacks in afghanistan and

all the undercurrent of that? >> there is a lot of threads to form that question. the question of our relations with pakistan in general is one of complexity, deep complexity. also, some pretty significant commitment military to military. a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of mistrust. this is not a new phenomena. it goes back, truthfully, decades. for example, officers of my generation have a pretty close relationship with each other because we went to each other's schools, we got to know each other over time. but there is a generation behind that, for reasons that are pretty well now, did not come to our schools. we did not engage with them. we have these kind of

generational gaps in our relationship that, frankly, create a lot of mistrust and misunderstanding. we are concerned, have been concerned, have been pretty up front with them. i try not to have the relationship play out in public but rather, work as closely as i can privately great-the right to remain concerned about the safe have -- closely as i can privately. but i do remain concerned about the safe havens. green on blue is the insider threat, or the threat of afghan soldiers or policemen turning on their u.s. or coalition partners. it is related, but not one that i can see articulate a cause and effect -- that i can see particularly a cause and effect. the green on blue, 100 instances, even that is complex. it would be based on the

ideological and religious differences, maybe an affiliation with t he taliban, maybe even affiliated with the pakistan taliban. everyone has its own challenge. the other 75 modera -- 7500 would be for other reasons, whether it is triboro, feeling -- tribal internal challenges. it is huge challenge, and i think you know that what we're working on is we are working on it from several different directions. one is counter intelligence operations, biometrics, education, tactics, techniques, and procedures when you are with and around them that i would not state publicly, but allow us to always be protected. it is extraordinarily complex.

the relationship with pakistan is my most complex relationship, but want to which i am committed to trying to find an increasingly common interest, certainly along the border of pakistan and afghanistan. >> marvin kalb here, that we will move to the back. >> marvin kalb with brookings trade general, is there today 8 doctrine that governs the use of military power? i have in mind the powell doctrine. is there something similar, a piece of the powell doctrine that exists today as a function? >> yeah, that is a great question. let me describe where we are today and where we need to be paid if you think of the powell doctrine guiding us in the early days of the 1990's, roughly from desert storm --

which, of course, was clear objectives, clearer end state, overwhelming force. we found that that model -- this is about finding models that fit in each phase of the evolution of security challenges -- we found that model that fit real well towards the end of the 1990's, if you recall, because the challenges that face us weren't existential necessarily. you cannot galvanize the entire nation behind a particular challenge. secondly, the notion of overwhelming force in a peacekeeping mission in bosnia was pretty hard to define. but we adapted into a peacekeeping -- after fighting against peacekeeping for some time, we conceded that the

military had a role in peacekeeping, and then we began to embrace it. along came 9/11, and as you know famously we went from the traditional template back to the powell doctrine, and then realized what confronted us in those two theaters was counterinsurgency. it was updated by the army and marine corps, and we embraced the counterinsurgency doctrine. what you heard me talk about today's kind of a nascent -- "inchoate" might be the right word -- we are beginning to adapt from counterinsurgency as our central organizing principle -- if i had to put a tag line on it today -- it would be premature to do it, but i'm going to -- we are headed towards a global network

approach to warfare. a global network approach. getting back to my point about taking these capabilities that we have not had before, really integrating them into our conventional capabilities, a partnering with a very different goal and processes to support it, and allowing ourselves to confront these networked, decentralized foes with something other than huge formations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines. i am not there yet -- i admit it up front that this is kind of an inchoate idea. what we looking for is to take this, which is very static and manpower-intensive, and see what we can do with smaller

organizations but that our networked globally, and with challenges on things that range from terrorism, because it is still out there, to piracy. this is a work in progress, but i've thought about it a lot. >> general, then you can pick -- >> yeah, i can take what i really want to answer. [laughter] >> i want to pick up on what you just talked about with partners and networking and your feeling about working with partners and networks that have a problem with the rule of law and institutions. you know, making institutions stronger, and the traditional relationships between the military and law enforcement and how that plays with a new

partner -- within the partnership strategy. >> of the lessons of last 10 years of war, prominent among those lessons is when we engage in counterinsurgency in particular -- not uniquely, but in particular -- it is not enough to just address power. the government, which over time just began to take shape -- in the beginning of 2003, 2004, 2005, in iraq, the whole of government was primarily a line on a powerpoint slide, but over time it began to deliver. i will give a personal thing yet to highlight this. in 2003, there was no security force, for reasons we all now, and we will not talk about whether there was a good idea or not.

but there was no security force. it became clear to us -- that is to say, those who wear the uniform of soldiers and marines -- that we had to find a way to get local security forces on the street. i began with by subordinate commanders to build almost a paramilitary army, an army-like force -- i cannot even remember the acronym. it became sort of the father of the afghan army. but it was local, we train them for a minimal amount of time. the idea was to get a face on security that was an iraqi face. concurrently, the department of state began to try to build back up the police forces in baghdad. just to show you the depth of the disconnect, i was training in this group of let's call them and national guardsmen -- that is what we call them now, iraqi national guard -- i was

turning them to operate in a counterinsurgency environment with the enemy that was very well armed. they were armed and equipped and organized. the police we were building were being trained in investigations and traffic circles. i'm not making that up, and i am not denigrating it. we were mirror imaging our own experience. and the police were getting clobbered. police stations were being run over, they were getting killed by the dozen. it took us a bit of time to come together, department of state, department of defense, and decide how to work collaboratively building up with the army and the police. we conceded that for a time, these police are going to have to have capability that you would not have to have were you sitting here in washington, d.c. over time, this whole of

government collaboration began to bear fruit. but to your other point about the complexity of this, issues of the rule of law, and i will add corruption, are extraordinarily difficult to overcome, because it is extraordinarily difficult for us to see it, and let alone to see it, address -- just two years ago, we had to stand up and anti-corruption force in afghanistan, because we realize the very mission was being placed at risk because of corruption. i would not suggest to you we have turned a corner on a fully understanding, first of all, how to address that as the whole government, and second, what the military's role is. we have come a long way since 2003. as we go forward, that is in an organization we have to keep plugging away at. -- that is a learning organization that we have to keep plugging away at a rate we

are closer as an intra-agency, as various agencies. we are a network. we are all challenging ourselves now, how much better do we need to be to confront the challenges that are common. we know how to confront the ones that just passed by. there are new ones ahead. >> let's go to the back. go ahead, amber. >> i am with the u.s. global leadership collision. thank you for your thoughtfulness. i would love to talk to you about the experiences we've had the past 10 years working interagency, but ask you about development. in particular, many military voices have said there will not be a military solution. it will ultimately have to be one on the ground, economic development. can you talk to us about the experiences we have gained, working across diplomacy, development, and defense?

>> i'll try, but this is one where -- i am going to digress, but i will circle back on it. when i go speak to groups of young colonels who are about to become general officers, or animals, i am also invited to speak to rising groups of seniors, and i always get a question, what is most important? my answer might surprise you, as it often surprises them. i tell them it is relationships. i said that because, to this gentleman's question of how we make progress on issues in iraq and afghanistan, fundamentally, we make progress as we start to build relationships with each other, and that took a couple of years, by the white r -- by the way. i think the first person i ever met in the state department, i was traveling with a lieutenant

colonel with 22 years of service. i am not making that up. we had no reason to interact with each other back in those days, especially at the lieutenant colonel level. today you cannot find a tenant that has not been partnered with somebody from usaid or department of state or justice or any number of other agencies. the question i asked myself now is how in the world will we maintain that relationship and personal connections as the conflicts dissipate and we all go back to our cubicles? that is going to happen. all my soldiers will go back to fort bragg and fort hood, and the state department folks will go back to foggy bottom and never the twain shall meet, and thus reduce the thing about it. as a leadership development issue, we owe it to ourselves to do something about that. >> been a very eager questioner.

>> yes, sir. when you speak about building partnerships and networks, are you including international intelligence sharing? sometimes it is. a difficult match -- sometimes ideas very difficult to match -- [unintelligible] transparency and secrecy. >> i am speaking specifically about how to share intelligence. we do it pretty well. actually, we do it very well, much better than at the beginning. government in the 1990's compared to what we do today, it is just phenomenal. i was speaking specifically about the requirement to take a look at our intel sharing parameters with our partners, technology transfer, foreign military sales processes.

all of those right now -- look, i am not saying anything i have not said to those who own the processes. they are cold war processes that have not yet adapted themselves to what we need to be doing today. in order to deliver the strategy that we all agree is the right strategy for the country, we have to get at this process. >> right behind -- >> you mentioned the iranian person, and last week, you're is really -- your israeli got a part said there is increased preparedness by israel as well as the united states. assuming you can confirm that, is this a coordinated effort for a confrontation with iran? at what level is discrimination taking place? > -- this coordination taking place? >> i'm not sure i have ever

been accused of talking about iran and a passing -- in passing. [laughter] let me confirm to you that the united states and israel -- i cannot speak for other nations. i would prefer they speak for themselves, and i am sure they would prefer to speak for themselves. but we and closely collaborating on a number of fronts, so that we can come to a common understanding of the threat and a likely timeline that we might have to confront. i probably met with him more than any other of my counterparts, nearly every other month since i've been the chairman. and that will continue, because we have common interests in the defense of israel, as well as ensuring -- well, as you know, we are determined to prevent

iran from becoming a nuclear state. i can assure you we are collaborating with the israeli military on intel sharing and on our posture, i will say it does not rise to level the joint military planning, but we are close to collaborating -- closely collaborating. >> oh, my. right there. >> cnn. in the past few weeks, you have seen north korea attempt to launch a rocket, the new leader give a long speech, longer than any speeches father gave -- speech his father gave, and a rather large military parade. i'm wondering if you have a better understanding of where this new leadership may go and can share anything with us about what you understand. >> i would say that what has been interesting is that he is

clearly a different person than his father, and that is just not -- that is not just a function of his age. itt has a different view of his role -- i think he has a different view of his role in public, not only with the speech he gave, but he is much more traveled than his father was. he has traveled, i think, to 55 or 56 different places around the country. i would say a lot of business have been for military installations, and you heard in his speech where he said the party's one, too, and refer him our military. that is distressing -- priorities 1, 2, and 3 for him are the military. that is distressing, given that he is leading a country that is starving to death. but i think i guess worth exploring, and my -- it is worth exploring, and my role in all this is military preparedness. who am i in close contact with? the other chief of defense,

with whom i spent a great tool of time -- great deal of time in prison as well as on the phone, white south korean counterpart. it is premature to make any determination about what kind of leader kim jong un would be, although we were all disturbed by the ballistic missile launch, which came on the heels of what we thought was a positive engagement. but we maintain our military preparedness, and i know that there are others working the diplomatic side of it. >> question right there. >> thank you very much. the voice of america, chinese branch. i am going to throw a softball. regarding the u.s.-china strategic and economic dialogue

which will be held in beijing later this week, and a security dialogue between u.s. and china on the military friend -- front, could you share with us the issues that will be discussed? the next question -- you just mentioned building a partnership. i would like to take -- your take on the standoff between china and the philippines, especially after the partnership with the philippines. >> worth mentioning is our future with china. we are balancing ourselves back in the pacific. that is not a containment strategy for china. i don't know how many viewed study history -- how many of you study history, but thucydides

describe what he called that thucydides trap. the athenian fear of rising sparta that made war inevitable. we don't want the fear of an emerging china to make war inevitable. i think there are more opportunities than liabilities for us in the pacific. you referred all of our senior leadership say that we embrace a rising trend. -- you have heard all of our senior leadership say that we embrace a rising china. i was able to meet with my counterparts, and those relationships are slow and youthful, but they are positive. each service has a different kind of relationship with its particular service, but that is

because we are trying to work it out. next week, or two weeks from now, i'm going to the shangri-la dialogue, and i'm hopeful that might chinese counterpart will be there. we'll talk openly and transparently about what to do in the pacific to both build these partners, and what those partnerships are intended to do. simply stated, they are intended to ensure stability and also intended to assure -- to make it clear we have some interest in navigation or commerce or access to which we intend to live, meaning we need to live up to those responsibilities we have as an asia-pacific partner. i say asia-pacific because there is this other country called india that is modestly sized and will be somewhat influential in the future. so, yeah, i don't know exactly what the agenda will be at that conference. i can tell you what my agenda

is, though. >> we have time for two more. >> thank you for the discussion. potomac institute for policy studies. i would like to know your definition of the word "victory" in afghanistan. what are the parameters of that victory, and white is the war protected? -- why is the war protracted? what are the reasons and how can we deal with that? >> thank you for asking. i am a student of vocabulary, and there are synonyms out there. let me zero in on the one question you asked about white it is taking so long. i would suggest it is taking so long because we are trying to do it right, and i really mean

that. if we had started at one end of afghanistan and fundamentally overrun it, destroyed it, created a situation where we made it a near-certainty that the taliban cannot come back because there was nothing to come back to -- of course we could. but that is not who we are, not what afghanistan would expect from us, and not what any of afghanistan's neighbors would expect from us. because we tried to do it right, we had some starts and stops, and in some cases we made more progress than others. when i say "do it right," it is about building a nation that has institutions to support it over time and that can provide for its own security. if you are asking for my definition of a victory in afghanistan, that is the definition. i think in terms of my responsibility to do that, ideas about building the afghan -- two things.

creating the war and violence, while we build up the afghan national -- securi -- creating space while lowering of violence, and building up the afghan national security forces. i just came back from their last week and for the first time,i saw not only the formation that was capable of shooting and had the right equipment -- they knew which squatted they were in, which platoon, which company. but it was more than that. they actually felt a sense of obligation to their country, not to us. we don't need them feeling an obligation to us. we need them feeling an obligation to their own country. this was a very ethnically diverse group of men. they are a little ahead of everyone else, because we place more emphasis on them. but there was some sense of nationhood there that i had not felt for the previous eight years. it has taken time, because the

business of creating institutions were some have never existed is a pretty hard slog. >> my question is about syria. recently the prime minister of turkey mentioned something about the possibility of protecting the borders of turkey, which is a nato country, from insurgents, the syrians. you see any role in nato for protecting the border or the civilians? >> our principal responsibility is to provide options to those political leaders -- my principal responsibility is to provide options political leaders who ask what we can do, and and we can do a great many things but we cannot do everything.

we can't guarantee a political outcome that would be better than the one they have now. that is not for me to decide. i will tell you that in my travels in the region, there is great concern about -- not rushing -- because it is a tragic situation that the international community really should be far more galvanized about, it seems to me. in that context of the great tragedy, is also the reality that the nations in that region -- i must begin for myself but i am speaking from having just come back in the region -- want to know what is next before they take that final step of military action. that is the message i came back from that part of the world. again, my option is to provide our leaders and as part of an alliance, alliance leaders, nato, there is no planning going on in nato but we would be part

of it and we would provide our political leaders options, military options, but what is our doctrine -- the military instrument should never be will the alone. -- never be wielded a lone. >> we could keep this conversation going until 10:00 p.m. but we are obliged to release general dempsey at 3:00 p.m. my apologies to all those i could not call on. please join me in thanking general dempsey. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> president obama was in afghanistan yesterday's signing an agreement with president, karzai address the nation from bagram airbase. his remarks are about 20 minutes.

we've got the task force in the house and we've got task force defender in the house. we've got me in the house.

82nd in the house, 82nd in the house. somebody will be in trouble that they did not have 82nd on here. anybody else i missed? this will be broadcast back come during primetime so all i want to do is say thank you. the sacrifices that all of you have made, the sacrifices your families make every single day

are what make america free and what makes america secure. and i know that sometimes out here when you are in theater it is not clear whether folks back home fully appreciate what is going on and let's face it, a lot of times, it is easier to get bad news on the news than good news. here's the good news and here is part of the reason i am here -- but just as signing a strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan that signals the transition in which we are going to be turning over responsibility for afghan security to the afghans.

we're not going to do it overnight. we will not do it irresponsibly. we're going to make sure a hard- fought gains that have been made are preserved. the reason we are able to do that is because of you. the reason the afghans have an opportunity for a new tomorrow is because of you and the reason america is safe is because of you. we did not choose this war. this war came to us on 9/11 and there are a whole bunch of folks here i bet you signed up after 9/11. fight't go looking for a but when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow

citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do. because of the sacrifices now of a decade of a new greatest generation, not only were we able to block the taliban momentum, not only were we able to drive al-qaeda out of afghanistan, but slowly and systematically, we have been able to decimate the ranks of al-qaeda and a year ago, we were able to finally bring osama bin laden to justice. [applause] that could have only happened because each and everyone of you in your own way were doing your

jobs. they each and every one of view, without a lot of fanfare or fuss, you did your jobs. no matter how small or how big, you were faithful to the oath you took to protect this nation. your families did their job, supporting you and love in your and remembering you and being there for you. so together, you guys represent what is best in america. you are part of a long line of those who have worn the uniform to make sure that we are free and secure. to make sure that those of us at home have the capacity to live

our lives and when you are missing a birthday or a soccer game or when you are missing an anniversary, and those of us back, are able to enjoy these things it is because of you. i am here to tell you that everybody in america knows that. everybody in america appreciates that. everybody in america honors you. when the final chapter of this war is written, historians will look back and say not only was this the greatest fighting force in the history of the world, but all of you also represented the values of america in an exemplary way. i could not be prouder of you. i want you to understand that i know it is still tough.

i know the battle is not yet over. some of you are buddies -- some of your buddies will get injured. some of your buddies may get killed. and there will be heartbreak and pain and difficulties ahead. but there is a light on verizon because of the sacrifices you have made. that is the reason why for michelle and me, nothing is more important than looking after your families while you are here and i want everybody here to know that when you get home, we are going to be there for you when you are in uniform and we will stay there for you when you are out of uniform because you have earned it. you have earned a special place in our hearts and i could not be

prouder to be your commander in chief, god bless you and god bless the united states of america. i want to shake some hands now. ♪ ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [stars and stripes forever] ♪

>> >> good evening. this is more than 7,000 miles from home. for over a decade, it has been close to our hearts. here and afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters of sacrifice to protect our country. today i signed a historic agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defined a new relationship between our countries. the future of which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation. we build an equal partnership between two states. a future in which war and a new chapters began. -- war ends and new chapters begin. tonight i would like to speak about this transition. let us remember why we came here. it was here in afghanistan where osama bin laden established a

safe haven for his terrorist organization. it was here where al qaeda brought new recruits, train them, and plotted new acts of terror. it was here that al qaeda launch the attack that killed nearly 3000 innocent men, women, and children. the united states and their allies went to war to make sure that al qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. despite initial success for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. in 2002, osama bin laden and is the tenants escaped and established safe haven in pakistan. americans spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in iraq. al qaeda's extremist allies have waged a brutal insurgency. or the last three years, of the tide has turned. we broke the taliban's momentum.

we build strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership, taking over this. tonight is within our reach. there will be difficult days ahead. enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. i would like to tell you how we can complete our mission and ended the war in afghanistan. we began a transition to afghan responsibility for security. nearly half of the afghan people live in places where security forces are moving into the lead. our coalition will set a goal for forces to be in the lead for combat operations across

the country next year. we will fight alongside the afghans when needed. we will shift into a support role as afghans step forward. as we do, our troops of becoming home. last year we removed 10,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan. after that, reductions will continue at a steady pace with more and more of our troops coming home. by the end of 2014, the afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country. we are training afghan security forces to get the job done. the forces have surged and will peak at 352,000 this year. the afghans to sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military.

in chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a long-term afghan force. we are building an enduring partnership. they're sending a clear message to the afghan people. if you stand-up comedy will not stand alone. -- stand up, you will not stand alone. it establishes the basis for our cooperation over the next decade to fight terrorism and strengthened debt part -- democratic institutions. advance development and dignity for the people. it includes afghan human rights. men and women, boys and girls. within this framework, we will work with the afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish narrow security missions beyond 2014. training.

we will not build a permanent basis in this country nor will we be patrolling in cities and mountains. people. we are pursuing a negotiated peace. in coordination with the afghan government, my administration has been in discussions. -- in direct discussions with the taliban. they made it clear that they can be a part of this feature if they break with al qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by afghan laws. many members of the taliban have indicated an interest in reconciliation. the path to peace is now set before them. those who refuse to what it will face afghan security forces backed by the united states and their allies. we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in south asia. in chicago, and they will

express support for this plan and afghanistan's feature. -- future. i have made it clear that they can and should be an equal partner in this process. -- pakistan. america has no designs except to an end to al-qaeda safe havensthere are no end to al qaeda's save havens. as we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. our goal is not to build a country in america's image or to eradicate every vestige of the taliban. these objectives would require many more years and dollars. american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda. we are on a path to do exactly that. afghans want to assert their sovereignty and build a lasting

peace. but that requires a clear time line to wind down the war. others will ask why we don't leave immediately. that answer is also clear. we must give afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. otherwise our games could be lost. -- our gains could be lost andal qaeda can establish itself once more. i refuse to let that happen. i recognize nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to the family of the fallen for a child that will grow up without a mother and father. i will not keep americans in harm's way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. we must finish the job we started in afghanistan. and end this war responsibly.

my fellow americans,we traveled through more than a decade through the dark cloud of war. yet here, in the pre-bond darkness of a tennis dan, we can see the lights of a new day on the horizon. the iraq war is over. the number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half. more will be coming home. we have a clear path to fill our mission in afghanistan while delivering justice to al qaeda. this feature is only within -- this future is only within reach because our men and women in uniform. time and again, if they had answered the call to surf in distant and dangerous places. -- to serve in distant and dangerous places. in an age when so many institutions have come up short, these americans stood tall. they met their responsibilities to one another and to the flag they serve under. i just met with some of them and told them as commander in chief, i cannot be prouder.

in their faces,we see what is best and ourselves and our country. our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians in afghanistan have done their duty. we must summon the same sense of common purpose. we must get our veterans and military families the support they deserve and the opportunities they have earned. we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice. as we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew america of where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. a united america. of grit and resilience wheresunlight glistened of downtown manhattan. we build our future as one nation. they are up holding human dignity.

here and afghanistan. americans answered the call. today we recall the fallen and those who suffered wounds both seen and unseen. their dark days we have drawn strength from their example. the ideals that have driven our nation. a belief that all people are created equal and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny. this is the light that guy does. -- that is the light that guides us still. this time of war began in afghanistan. this is where it will end. faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future. let us finish the work at hand and forge a just and lasting peace appeared may god bless our troops. may god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we are live in a couple of hours with a panel on cyber security. it takes place at 9:00 a.m. on c-span2. up next, we will take your calls and e-mails live on "washington journal." later, we -- newt gingrich with dolls from the presidential campaign. that is live at 3:00 is -- that is live at 3:00 is david lampton joins us. we talk about his trip to beijing with the secretary geithner and secretary clinton. and then,