significantly since he has come on. secondly, thankfully, the military has been able to reverse the gains and the momentum of aqap in the south. they have dislodged and number of those units. -- dislodged a number of those units. there are several hundred committed hard-core and then there are a lot of part-time moonlighters subjoined them because they're in the area. i do think psychologically and your graphically there have been significant gains made by the forces. but the demonstrate that they can push back. now the amenities have to push back behind it. -- now the yemenese to push back. the core of all qaeda really has taken this on and they have

integrated in terms of the number of operatives, leaders, and others taken off the battlefield. we continue to maintain pressure because that is the wellspring from which they have sprung. just because they're significantly degraded and badly damaged, does not mean they do not pack a lethal punch. to get these operatives out and trained, we know what they did at 9/11. still, there are a lot of individuals that are attracted to the al qaeda propaganda that wants to carry out these types of attacks. i'm concerned about the growth of the franchise. you look at the number of attacks in iraq, the situation in syria. then you look in africa. there are a lot of areas. they will take advantage of that territory that is on

governed. in somali with the turmoil, there are areas in the north that now qaeda has been in league with some of the troubles and others that presents a continued threat. right now, a lot of the outside elements in africa pose a regional threat but there is a concern they could use their growth to look to the north, to europe, and beyond. unfortunately, al qaeda has not gone away. i know memory sometimes fades since 9/11, but we have pulled apart the heart of al qaeda, but the appendages still exist and continue to grow. that is why, first and foremost, we have to work with our partners. no matter how many predators or drones you had in there, we want the countries to be able to take the situation on themselves and be able to carve out the

cancerous tumor about qaeda. >> a couple of minutes left. >> two questions and if you could keep them short? >> i wanted to follow up a question on who threatens the critical infrastructure. your response was "bad guys peacoat state bad guys, a criminal enterprise, etc. what if there is a collaboration among them? >> thank you. could you pass the microphone over? then you can ask your question on the topic. >> i would like to direct your attention to nigeria. i would like to see what your assessment is. is this an existential threat to the state? how are we working on it? >> those are two big questions. >> in collaboration between the various groups, one of the

nominal and i would point to is that there are a lot of individuals who have been a of these groups abroad you have refined their capabilities while they were in those professional slots. sometimes, these individuals will retire or move on to other pastures. sometimes they set up their own legitimate efforts and sometimes illegitimate. sometimes they maintain relationships with their previous employers in the government. what we are seeing in different places in asia are that there are a number of activities emanating from asia that sometimes it's very hard to distinguish whether this is coming from a state sponsor, someone working on behalf of the state sponsor, and organized criminal groups, a business

trying to advance commercial interests or what ever. we are seeing more and more common features and we are seeing the dna moving downstream. frequently, a lot of it comes from the skills that won acquire the in the government. anybody working for the u.s. government right now is encouraged to have a long and prosperous career in the u.s. government, but we ought to be mindful that there are relationships there either born out of a pedigree or how they develop these skills or because different types of organizations have a common cause. in nigeria, it is a very serious concern that we have and the nigerian government has. in nigeria, you have domestic issues, christian-muslim tensions.

these have been the elements of a domestic phenomenon that now has these terrorist dimensions to it. what constitutes terrorism? just like they have the insurgency against the yemen government, a could be considered to be waging a domestic battle against the nigerian government. there are elements of it and its offshoots that have a far and target in its sights and continue to go after it. one of the things that i think we have learned and the governments in africa have learned is that these organizations have the potential to expand at a rapid pace. it's critically important to nip it in the bud, if you can. it speaks that you can take the actions to mitigate the

manifestations of the terrorist threat but also address some of the underlying causes, conditions, and factors that have contributed to these movements. aqap had its roots in the of qaeda corp., but they were taking advantage of some of the real problems in yemen. there is an ideologically driven corps that has a domestic political agenda but also, it is fed by a number of the underlying conditions that, either because of discrimination or perceived inequities in the system they are able to recruit. the teenagers in africa being attracted and pulled in to these organizations, dollars or $20 is something to attract them to sign on to a terrorist organization. at 16, they don't know any

better. we really have to tackle the country as a whole, the problems that exist, because they will just take advantage. president obama, even though he has agreed to and authorize the actions that we need to take to keep the american people save, he continues to drive home that these are just temporary measures and we need to make sure we are able to address those conditions, those factors that are contributing to these terrorist organizations being able to exploit the conditions that exist in certain countries. whether we're talking about somalia, nigeria, yemen, there are broader issues that need to be tackled. judicial reform, legal reform, rooting out corruption. these are all a part of a broader counterterrorism, a broader security effort that the

president has insisted that we pursue. >> john brennan, white house adviser on terrorism. thank you for joining us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> live coverage of a campaign fund-raiser for president obama in chicago where he arrived to all the five campaign events today. by that four-o'clock 30 p.m. eastern on c-span. the newly chosen vice- presidential candidate for the republican ticket will be campaigning in wisconsin with stops in north carolina before heading to waukesha. we will bring you that tonight

live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. next, a look at the israeli- palestinian conflict with retired admiral william fallon. he said the middle east needs u.s. leadership and it has geopolitical importance. he served as the commander of central command until 2008 and he resigned following an article in "esquire." this is just over one hour. >> it is my great pleasure to welcome to dartmouth and introduce to you admiral william fallon. he has spent more than 40 years serving in the united states military. he began his career as a naval aviator and served in a variety

of positions and eventually command positions culminating first in his position as combatant commander of the united states pacific command, the positions responsible for all u.s. military forces and plans in the entirety of asia. he was subsequently in united states central command but for all forces in the middle east. these are arguably the two most important positions in the united states military. he has begun a second career public service and has served on a variety of boards, commissions, and panels relating to hire education, various congressional commissions and also for the private sector. he is an expert not only on u.s. match -- national security

policy but also foreign policy. two minutes ago, he said, "what will you say in the introduction?" just say, "he used to fly airplanes and he wishes he still did." with that, please join me in welcoming admiral william fallon. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction. i hate to start out making excuses, but as you can probably hear, i just bent an hour and half with a fired up a bunch of undergrads year. they pummeled me with questions.

i think this comes with chasing my grand kids around the woods in washington. at any rate, i'm delighted to be here with you today. this is my first visit to this campus. i was asked to talk about the middle east and our interests and policies related there. it is an area of high interest and a fair amount of my past was spent in the area. american interaction in the middle east came early to our young nation.

in came in the early 19th century against the barbary pirates. until recently, u.s. focus has been primarily maritime, overseeing economic and security interests with almost -- with only a small footprint. my first personal experience in the region was about 35 years ago. i was visiting in my professional capacity as a naval officer. it is relatively recent from a historical perspective considering the fights with the barbary corsairs a few hundred years ago.

>> ok, so what does the admiral nub of the middle east and why should we pay attention to him at all? there are a lot of learned professors year on the campus and many people know many things. i would offer that my perspective is a little different than some may have encountered. i have visited every country in the arabian peninsula 3 southwest asia. much has occurred in this part of the world in the last four decades.

for better or worse, have been on the scene for most of it. are most vivid experiences in life revolve around people. my introduction to the diverse cultures and people of this region was facilitated by a pretty remarkable israeli woman. let me set the scene. 1977 and dime on the first aircraft carrier to ever visit the state of israel. when in the very first u.s. navy ships to ever call in this country. we enter the harbor. a couple of us went ashore to set up things. we are greeted by this short, energetic woman who seems to be everywhere and she comes out to me, grabbed my hand, hugs me and says, "i'm thrilled that you're

here. we are so happy you have come to visit us. we have some people who want to share our enthusiasm." then the school for kids to immediately break out into song and dance. it was very lovely. it was nice and warm, personable. when i came to learn was that she was a remarkable woman who had emigrated from as a rajan in the early days. -- azerbaijan to israel. she seemed to know everyone, no matter of the word jew, christian, muslim. her enthusiasm for people and the possibilities of people

doing things together was quite contagious. she came because she wanted to meet us. i have seen her many times over the last 30-something years. i have remarked to several people that she with president of this country, things would have probably happen a lot faster. she showed me what was possible. she took me out and introduced made people coming every religious, cultural, and tribal

persuasion you can imagine. she knew people in 11 on, jordan, egypt, turkey, everywhere. she's not quite so enthusiastic today about the long term and she was back in those days, but she still has this optimistic view of people. i took a lot of lessons from that first meeting and i keep in mind. anything is possible of people are willing to work for it. she certainly is. i digress. the policy-making and execution in this region has been shaped by a swirl of political, economic, and security factors. so what? what's different? the middle least as complicated by acutely conflicting religious and ethnic and social issues.

there's the land. the sand, the vast desert areas, millions of square miles of mostly parched earth, rock, and sand. sand on the move but shifting constantly in the wind. there is the silence, the emptiness. in dallas the senses like a shroud. i've been to the deserts' many places. the stealing purses down on one everywhere.

it is an ever-present reminder of the unforgiving environment in which the survival is day to day and people live by their wits and shrewd interactino. appreciation of the environment is essential to understanding behavior in this region. of course, people of different cultures have lived, thrived, and prospered. the millennia here have featured change and conflict, alliances often shifting. now the u.s. a little more than half a

century in the region from half a world away. these can be grouped into three main categories, economic, political, and security. the defining issues defining the interest in the 1940's and continues to shape engagement today of can be expressed in one word -- oil. the energy sector driven by natural gas, reserves in the region of in the rapt attention of the now developing nations of the world, the middle east energy resources have played a huge role in economic stability

and financial stability of world markets. high demand for oil created a hydrocarbon dependency that magnify the influence of this region. the middle east embargo and recurring strikes sent shockwaves through the world financial markets resulting in small behavioral changes in japan and western europe and the pursuit of alternative energy sources. to power the developing economy

and its energy resources, in a connected world economies and maintained a high level of interest in the region. opec, the organization of petroleum exporting countries, has had resulting impact on prices. they replaced the railroad commission of texas as the arbiter of world oil prices. the track record of the group combined with international tensions is a major factor in the world economy.

although opec behavior has supported the unusually high prices as the interest in oil futures as an asset class. this is truly becoming a factor in keeping the markets there. virtually all these petroleum products are convened by sea along with other commerce in the region. these maritime lifelines of the economic life blood on the world and are special-interest

of the u.s. and its executive entity for addressing this interest, the u.s. navy. of particular concern are the three major maritime passages, the potential choke points through which all energy exports in the region. the strait of hormuz in the suez canal. more than half of the oil and gas coming out of the gulf continue around india and that to northeast asia. these are of very high interest to everyone in the world. as you are aware, those around these choke points, yemen,

egypt, merrill current points of instability. mentioned previously, but to emphasize again, the interdependence and connectivity of the world economy guarantees that the events, good or bad affect everyone. the combination of high energy demand, a limited reserves, and a nearly continuous turmoil rivets attention on the region. seguing into the topic of security, a driving factor in u.s. interest, we note instability, conflict, and wars as hallmarks.

and has featured a conflict of one kind or another spanning the entire middle east be on the gulf. additional concern about an energy resources, it was featured prominently in the cold war and witnessed the rise of leaders are very rare. the creation of the state of israel has proven to be an enduring flashpoint and wars have flared up since the 1940's. the u.s. has had a robust maritime presence of the end of world war ii.

the was a mutually destructive decade of neutral bloodletting between iraq and iran. president carter came into office not long after the oil embargo in 1973. having been deeply disturbed by the tightening since richard tighten supply, he famously declared the energy crisis was the moral equivalent of war. this was heightened by events in iran and the soviet invasion of afghanistan lead to another declaration, the carter doctrine, which as been a standard of the u.s. promote -- a program of the shield. "but our position be absolutely clear.

an attempt by an outside force to day control the persians in the gulf region will regarded as an adult -- assault on the united states of america and it would be entered using any means necessary including forced." was and primarily at the soviet union, but this restatement were issued by eisenhower, truman, and nixon and started the wheels turning in washington and elsewhere. at the time, the u.s. had scant military ability and have only recently begun strategizing about potential least contingencies. the establishment of a task force will direct it to focus on ensuring stability near free- fall commerce. under president reagan, but organization was given full combat a command status under central command.

high-level military command was institutionalized back then. u.s. forces, primarily maritime, began spending more time, particularly in the gulf so as they prayed non-commercial oil shipments as they jockeyed for advantage. for rabin 1980's, relations between the u.s. and iran were contentious setting the stage for what has become a decades- long history of animosity, distressed, and posturing. iran is working hard to achieve nuclear weapons capability in an attempt to gain the upper hand against preemptive action. saddam hussain's invasion of kuwait led to the first large- scale introduction of u.s. ground and air forces to the region.

it had an influx of american man and woman power and was viewed with anxiety, especially by the king of saudi arabia. it was accepted reluctantly in order to counter the iraqi aggression. the successful defeat have the resources from drop the region carefully assembled by the u.s. and consider the high water mark of security cooperation to date. iran did not join despite a decade-long conflict with iraq. in the aftermath of the first gulf war, the u.s. retained a higher profile military presence in the region, mostly naval and air force but including

substantial ground in kuwait. the focus now was to contain our iraq. salaam continued the oppression of the kurds, threatening neighbors. it is no wonder that eventually all u.s. military presence was removed from the kingdom of saudi arabia. tension remained high during the behavior frustrated every effort to stabilize the region. despite enthusiastic intentions by president herbert walker bush to encourage settlement of the new israeli-palestinian issue, no real progress was realized and the security situation continues to feature almost constant conflict highlighted by military and terrorist actions and and it's

between them. the attacks against the u.s. on 9/11, a perpetrated by zealous muslim extremists had lined the seriousness of the threat posed by radicals long lists organized confronted by all qaeda under osama bin laden. they had feared repression, region and throughout the world. among the lessons to be taken in the wake of these events is first from the complexity of regional surity issues and the consequences of perceptions by people. it is ironic that many of the radicals to caused so much pain were the same people whom reported with financial material resources a few years previously in the struggle against the soviets. these things and the

contradictory lines in the region merited our attention and time to understanding. the second issue here is the perceptions of those in the region related to the previous point. one key attribute was generalization. it, inclination poor simple understanding, but one difference between the ideas that did not warrant. lumped together. we would do well to remember that the metal least the fis generalization. after 9/11, we witnessed attacks on afghanistan to expel al qaeda, ousted taliban from

control, increasing hostility in relations with iran and a large movement of security forces of many nations throughout the region. to spare you an hour of a blow by blow analysis, let me summarize issues and their repercussions today. first, the continued belligerence in iran and throughout the area. next, the wars in iraq and afghanistan and their consequences, finally the continued threat of terror attacks supported by regional entities. linkages abound. lange during mistrust of u.s. intentions continues to much of a potential terrorists. iran perceives we're focused on a regime change following the iraqi model. this is viewed with great suspicion. moving to the political and social dimensions put us in

uncharted waters. the events, commonly referred to as the arab spring, have challenged flanking and they appear to be moving in mobile directions. first, let's set the scene with some background. after our initial foray in the 19th century, the next significant event to occur in the region was fdr on his way back from pteron -- tehran went to malta, flew to egypt, and ordered a u.s. navy ship to set sail and anchored there. during that day and half, president roosevelt entertained

three visitors. remember that he was a very sick man at the time and images at the time showed how serious the situation was. he asked to meet with three leaders in the region. first, king abdul aziz from saudi arabia. king farouk of egypt, and the leader of ethiopia. i recall pictures of these events and they were entertaining if nothing else. they came aboard, picture this for the non-navy types, a heavy cruiser with guns, an anchor in the middle of the great lake in part of the suez canal passage

and along comes a destroyer bearing the king of saudi arabia and his entourage which numbered in the hundreds. i don't know how did not roll over and sank. they all came aboard. there were pictures of the king and the president sitting together. there was a line of what must have been 100 princes with their swords, daggers watching intently. politicsworthy that highlighted each of these conversations. for route was interested in getting the british out of egypt. -- farouk one of the british out. he wanted eritrea returned to ethiopia. they warned the president and i

guess the information of the jewish state of palestine. as in reno, the end of control with borders arbitrarily assigned by the colonial power set in motion events and activities which still backs policy makers to this day. governments, which replaced the colonials, were headed in that direction. in the absence of democracy come individuals and groups, including now well known entities like the muslim brotherhood, provide for power in the instability in generally done little to address the needs and investments of individuals.

the u.s. has often found itself in policy dilemmas as it sought to boost the democratic process but not alienate longtime supporters or undercut stable economic or security arrangements. ultimately, political settlements and solutions must be found. there should be the long term aim of the west where to focus first? with the usual long list of troubled places and issues in the region, it's understandable the policy makers are often challenged by the issue due sure. something comes up every day and we have to deal with it. today, i think there are three big challenges that overshadow all else. there are linkages between them.

first, the wave of uprisings, protests, and violence currently sweeping the region. second, iran and their apparent quest for weapons while continuing to export terrorism. third, the long festering impasse between israelis and the palestinians. it only palestine were solved, everything else would be solved. i do not embrace that view. i do believe that a solution must be found for this problem. the status quo is untenable for both parties. resolution of the conflict is a vital national security interest of the united states. the u.s., us. american leadership is a central component and a catalyst for our

ever to see a durable solution that accommodate legitimate israeli security interests and palestinian sovereignty. there were the first shock waves in the colonial era and as exchanged one type of of authoritarian rule for another, albeit with some trappings of participatory government. they assert the right to return to historic evidence in the region, but they continue to stoke revolutions and empower to incite trouble in and around palestine, israel, neighboring iraq and afghanistan. this one has many layers of complexity including centuries- old competing as lawmakers disputes, anti-americanism, and their visions of historic grandeur. resolution of this issue will clearly involve the u.s. and

require a vast reservoir of long-term planning, clear position statements come careful execution, and patients. the last of the big three challenges is how to deal with the most monumental upheaval since the end of the colonial time. popular movements are clear expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. out with the old, in an easily understood message. what remains to be seen is, what next? we have seen a revolution in the past. more often than not, some degree of chaos or untidiness. we are inclined to oppose tyrants and call for elections. the problem is that without an institutional structure of government, the process results in little difference. it's no small matter to establish the training, and experience, checks and balances

needed. functioning government institutions in which citizens have a trust is daunting and unsettling for us to watch. what should we do? first things first, we must fix ourselves before we can convince others of the righteousness of our policies. and hostage to be put in the order. the debt needs to be reduced and on financial footing. we should fix primary and secondary indication. its abysmal. we need to refocus on innovation and emphasize research and development. that's the future. do not accept mediocrity for fear of offending. retrieve civil discourse from the trash talking that is all too prevalent today. we have an unparalleled history of behavior based on principles. let's return to basics.

let's tell -- let's hold our elected officials accountable and act responsibly for the common good. treat people with dignity and demonstrate standards of good behavior. people noticed. if we offer example and walk the talk, we enter policy discussions with credibility and confidence. tended to everyday business with principal action. policy should follow a prescription of fairness, dignity, elected good based on freedom and choice. we do not throw out our choice on friends but printable trump's preference. engage on the three big issues -- bad news. it does not get better with time. it is not as going to melt away in the heat. it will surely continue.

we can help by example and by assisting with the tools of institutional government. this is not easy. it will require planning, patience, and skillful and climate the wall aspect of the american national power keeping in mind that changes ever- present and technology advances with astonishing acceleration, but human behavior is unpredictably occurring. the father petition challenged by parents in northern africa. a long way from home, but vexing. our leadership established policies, decided on a course of action, in new the capabilities of government to solve the issue. the message went along which established a reputation of the united states.

we have many good reasons to act as a major power in the beacon of freedom we have become as a nation. the middle east meets today, more than ever, american leadership. the sand will continue to shift, but we should not shy away. hope and expectations are rising as people in the region are don the yearning for change, freedom, and choice. the region has great geopolitical reasons for the arrest and that is a carefully planned engagement. but we finish with a few lines from h w longfellow. we can make our lives sublime and departing, leave behind us, footprints on the sand of time. thank you very much. you have been kind and i will be happy to try to take your questions.

[applause] >> i had a stock answer during the war in 2006. we cannot undo what happened in the past, but we can work on what we're doing now and in the future. the lesson here is that it's extremely complex. before we jump in to such endeavors again, we need to do an awful lot of studying, a lot more than we did before that particular war began.

the old adage that things are often not as they appear was zero so true. -- oh so true. we learned a lesson that every level. our troops were magnificent in challenging circumstances. we had combat engagement that rivaled those of world war ii in intensity and casualties. our people performed superbly. they did time and again what we asked them to do. at the end of the day, it's all about people. you have to have a level of trust. let's talk about trust. without trust that every local, we cannot succeed unless you are a dictator or retirement and you can just direct things to happen, but not for long. we spent the better part of one year when i got on the scene trying to build trust with the

iraqi people. at the end of the day, it's their country. they had to step up and take over. it's easy to say that from a distance that they should have done that earlier wrong, but they did not. they did not trust us. the thought we're going to walk away at the first opportunity. some thought we would never go way, everywhere in between. back to work at establishing trust. if you back out of that, it goes to a couple of the comments i made here. we act based on principle. we try every time to do the right thing, to have a measure of responsiveness to the challenge. it would be nice if everyone in the world were basically nice, decent human beings, but they're not. we spend far too much time, in my opinion, digging s out of holes that we jump in instead of

taking preventive steps that we could and should be taking and let me give you a few examples. there are many troubled areas in the world. there are areas and regions of people who can use our help and assistance. we have this aversion to doing things in many cases, spending money to engage in international affairs. it's really tough. it is a tough sell on the hill. i used to try to get up there and try to convince them that if they would fund an ounce of prevention today that we would prevent -- look at the trillions we have a whistle away. i had a fraction of that money during the early part of the war when i was in the pacific, think of the good i could have done in indonesia and, the philippines, malaysia, india and. i do not mean giving things to

people. i'm dead set against the basic welfare of their -- welfare business, but empower them to fix things, get confidence in running their infrastructure, and they do it. in many cases, they need our help. this is a much better use of our resources, in my opinion. there were not too many old lessons learned. you're not supposed to talk into the microphone gets in front of your face. there are helpful people to take care of that. >> you talk about spending money. my question is would you address your thoughts on the seemingly endless desire of the corporate

and political pressures by companies that make a lot of money by selling military equipment. what we read now, i would like to know whether or not you think it is accurate, but they're trying to force greater expenditures through congress than even the military people are asking for. if we are the only remaining "super power," are we over- militarized? but the problem is that we live in an era of sound bites. we're constantly bombarded by people who have something to say about an issue of which they generally know little. but they focus on an issue. let's take this company and their lobbying to build more of whatever that thing maybe.

should we buy two, 20, or 200? who knows. there are bigger picture in my sense. we have had a decade of expansion of the department and its budget. regrettably, most of that money has been whistled over the side in foreign places. during that time, unfortunately, we invested very little in the future. a wise household and a wise business does near term, midterm, and long-term planning. in the u.s. government spending arena, that equation is usually out of tilt. you could find every angle on these arguments and find the peace of this that is actually accurate and a piece that is not

accurate. we know that the spending is going to come down. it is certain. this started already and will continue. exactly what the level is remains to be seen. it's difficult for me to say that it ought to be $33 billion because of this. i do not have the visibility in there that i did. there's an awful lot that is wasted. it's wasted for 100 reasons in the process. the process itself consumes an incredible amount of money. first things first, instead of haggling over whether it will be 233 or 243, we need to get the big picture right and get the budget. that will mean some things will come down and some things are going to have to go up, but instead of haggling over a project, in my opinion the guys

who are elected need to get their act together. they are long overdue to come up with a coherent plan that gets us in a state of solvency where we have some credibility. with all of this we have seen in washington and new york, come on. and speaking to a terrific bunch of bright young students today. in my opinion, we have an opportunity to joggle balls. people in this country are confused. they cannot tell the difference between big balls but something that will have little to none impact.

i think they should focus on the big items rather than haggle. there are some things we need, some things we should do without. i have my personal preferences. i'm always inclined to go with smaller, leaner, meaner. at least i have some span of control. next. >> from a strategic perspective, is this a boon or a difference

in the middle eastern region? >> . going into the media? you sound like it. i did not want to give you a hard time, but i will. this is the kind of framing that does not do justice to the issue. the issue for us come if you believe what i say it ought to be about crafting execution, it is the only country in the entire middle east that has a true democracy. it is not pretty. screwed up and they cannot make a decision.

they are an exemplary democracy where people have a say in the that cannot be said about any other places. what do we support? is it a pain in the neck? yes. do we disagree on a lot of them? absolutely. are there different approaches? yes. big balls, little balls. this is an exemplary kind of government. then there is a lot of history. on the other hand, because

we support democracy, just because we uphold the opportunities for freedom of choices does not mean that we can all be bankers. it is much easier for is someone like me outside. i was there a couple of weeks ago. of all the things that keeps them awake at night, there are a lot of them. you have to live in a state where debt and danger lurk everywhere. a lot of places applies to this. it is a reality. there has been a lot of mayhem and terror. if they do not solve this issue, this is not going to get

better. it is going to get worse. there are going to try to force something that blows up. we have a challenge. we have to encourage them. they have supported us on many things. one of the biggest things particularly in this issue is do facts.her me but fawith i was one time i washington on the hill. i was a whippersnapper that thought he knew too much.

i ground my teeth. i waited until the chairman said this. i said, in my world ideal and deal in facts. he said you have something to learn. our perception is that you guys are screwed up. in the middle east, the legends have enduring myths. many people believe things that absolutely not true. they have heard the stories so many times. it becomes part of the fabric of life. it is tough to change opinions.

i bought some years ago some peace. then there was the conflict. they can come to their senses. i am of opinion that they're not going to do on their account. we are the only likely facilitator. it might be enduring in this area. i will work my way back. >> i would like you to comment on this early news show this morning. they interviewed a former

ambassador for hysteria. his comment -- for syria. his comment was that they would never stop fighting and it was up to the u.s. to stop it. ted it as sending troops. >> i would not sign up for that. the days are numbered. it is a matter of time. this is significant. he has a strong group of supporters. it is a distinct minority. they have to be weighing their options. as the opposition get bolder, we

will see more violence. i do not think it is planned to last forever. for us to jump into this, if i were still in the region and this will be my responsibility, what is it you want me to do? if that is to just pacify the country that i would probably turn to the marine corps and ask them how many troops they had. it is not a road i would care to trot. this is not the issue. the issue is we have done this. we came into your country and took it over twice in the past

decade. we discovered the cost of these things is extremely high. that is not our m zero. one would think that despite the desire to help out the rest that this is something we're probably going to help along. i do not think it is a great idea for us to jump into it. richard? >> much of the turmoil in the middle east seems to involve suny muslims versus shiite muslims. the rivalries go back centuries. what are the prospects for stability, let alone something approaching democracy?

>> the only good news is that most of the country'ies do not conflict within the country. bahrain is an exception right now. the issue has been iraq where about half of the population is shia. there are lots of opinions offered when i was still serving out there. one of them was that because iran was shia and they were helping the iraqis that in the

blink of an nine the place would turn into a shia stronghold twice as big as iran today. that sent tremors of fear to all fies.e gulries in washington they have a lot of adherence to that idea. i used to say, wait a minute. i do not think it will play out this way. yes the leadership in baghdad owes a lot to the iranians. most of shelter in iran. the government is heavily dominated. these people have been around a long time. one of the things we do not pay attention to is that iran is

overwhelmingly shia. it is not likely to be run by arabs. in their view, the arabs are out there, but they are not on our level. the shia arabs are well aware of this. however much supporty he may get from iran, iran calling the shots is highly unlikely. we will not solve the split in is long. it is a factor with the shia. at least in the middle east. there are so many centuries of domination.

they had a persecution complex. they are looking beyond this. every tree was left standing. you can get a little irrational. o be thisot havfe te t way. in my previous life, one of the areas i had under my responsibility was indonesia. it is overwhelmingly muslim. a much greater population than any other country in the world. they are not radical at all. their brands is very benign. they are devout muslims. they are not given to these extremes. because at my earliest aggressions. more than a little less to do with the environment. it is really tough territory.

go back and look at the bloodletting that is going on. it is a very tough territory. there are shia/suny disputes. it is interesting when you start looking back on some of these. portia in iran -- the shia in iran working with al white they'reed syria -- ala looking for whatever help they can get. there are looking to fight any way they can do it. it is a factor. it is a concern.

they were a about it. why are they worried about it? they are all worried about the retributions. maybe they feel a little guilty for centuries. they are concerned. i think maybe it is not as big of a deal as some people would put it up to me. let me take the gentlemen in the silver hair. >> to bring it back to the navy in a little bit, in arabian sea and gulf, what do you think would happen if the iranians attempted to close the streets or created an incident in the gulf of? >> it is back to basics.

historically are present as the maritime. it is not fit culturally. the iranians might try it. it is just a matter of time. they know they really cannot match up against us. unfortunately, you get a lot of posturing. we are getting back to budget now. we are stretched thin. there is not a whole lot of slack. my son is a naval aviator. he is shaking his head. these guys should be sent back on the six month turnaround.

he said i am not sure how long we keep this up. this is where it takes courage from the leaders. it is too much tactical detail. there are ways to do this. you can demonstrate power. periodically showing that we have the wherewithal to enforce what we need to do. the message is to be sent to these people. sometimes they have short memories. the enthusiasm overloads their brains. my experience was when i dealt with the iranian navy the revolutionary guards had the upper hand. if they're not so disciplined.

this is the danger. one of these yahoos screws up. people think it is really in jeopardy. they may enjoy a temporary success. iran lives or dies by exports. if it gets close comment that is another nail in our coffin -- if it gets close to comment that is another nail on our coffin for getting them to sustain themselves. it has bugged the heck out to me because the media was always trying to incite me. it was something they could trumpet back.

this is an area that is much better quietly. not just this particular thing that the whole business of operating in this region. it is what they are used to. it is probably what we ought to think back and start doing. we've got to get back in the mode of making and planning important things first and then worrying about the little things. ok? thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i would do a dance you do not want to see that. >> in about an hour and 15 minutes, live coverage of the campaign fund-raiser for president obama in chicago. he will be holding five fund-

raisers today. join us live at 4:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the newly chosen vice presidential candidates returns home today as well. paul ryan will be campaigning with mitt romney in wisconsin. they will have to waukesha wisconsin which will bring you live tonight. next a situation in afghanistan and pakistan and a look at the future of the two countries. they talked about efforts to combat the talent and. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> during the course of the last session, we took a look for at the iraq war. in this session we are going to do likewise with regards to

afghanistan and pakistan as well. i cannot think of anyone better to leave that discussion then steve cross. they want their extraordinary lengths to get here. he has been a correspondent for 60 minutes for 23 years. 60 minutes is the most watched news program on television. his story on insider trading drove the recent passage. he is the only correspondent sue went two awards in same year, bringing his total award to five. one was for the story of the vulnerabilities of infrastructure. the other was on the enormous sums of money.

please join me in welcoming steve cross and his panel. >> thank you. we are following iraq and afghanistan. we have a very distinguished group here today. on my left is the ambassador for the united states from afghanistan. next to him is the presidential assistant in the area of afghanistan embroiled pakistan. next to him as carl, a former ambassador to afghanistan. we have on teleconference the ambassador sherry and was not

because of agigabiit prior commitment. she wanted to be here badly enough to agree to talk to us here. you can see her sitting back there. i want to begin this with a quote with a recent article by the new yorker on the situation in afghanistan. nearly 2000 americans killed, 16,000 wounded, and nearly $400 spent more than 12,000 dead.

the united states is leading the, mission not accomplished. they have been abandoned or downgraded because they have not worked for there was no longer enough time to achieve them. do you agree with that assessment? >> with due respect, i do not agree. our people do not want to go to those dark days of civil war and also to dark days of taliban who ruled the country. now we have a strong military. we have a strong police force. we have a vibrant civil society. we have a very active media,

with a liberty that you cannot find within that region. it can only grow for the last 10 years. remarkable. more importantly, our own people are frustrated with board. they do not want to go back. if you look at that within a region context, more countries within the region wanted that to happen. afghanistan as history has taught us, it is located in the heart. if a heart is not functioning and not pumping the blood within a system, the whole body is not working. no country within the region as far as i know, iran and

afghanistan were to slip back to the civil war. the one afghanistan to be invigorated within the region. also, we have strategic partnership agreements with our key allies, the united states of america, with the united kingdom, with france, italy, germany, australia, india, and a lot others are coming into the pipeline. that will give assurance for in during partnerships for the years to come. >> i would say baxter has a run on two accounts. the mission has not yet been fully accomplished, the mission against al qaeda, the core

mission to eventually defeat al qaeda -- as we have heard it is within sight. it is not yet accomplished. nobody is saying mission accomplished. we are saying that is within sight. the other point where he is wrong as we are not leaving. one of the major outcomes of the chicago summit two months ago is that while we are on a path to transition to lead to afghan responsibility by the end of 2014, even beyond 2014 we imagines with afghan invitation there will be a sustained u.s. military presence, diplomatic presence, intelligence and present -- intelligence presence. the mission is not yet accomplished but it is within sight and we are not leaving. >> i was telling steve i know i definitely left government and military service when i am comfortable sitting on stage with 60 minutes. three points. first of all, what do we know about the mission and what we have accomplished? think back to 9/11, al qaeda is not in afghanistan in any kind

of numbers. al qaeda has been weakened over the last decade and was dealt a heavy blow last year that was from a base in afghanistan. in terms of governance, afghanistan is fragile, but over the last decade they have been through four elections. they have been flawed elections. from an afghan perspective, look back in 1992 and 1993. how did power decided at that point? it was a group of war lords firing rockets into the city. tens of thousands dying. massacres that followed. from an afghan perspective, how the politics look right now? fragile, but better than many

years. the third point about successes in the economic social-service dumbing, transformational in terms of education. in 2001 there were 1 million afghans going to school. now there are 4 7 million. 40% of them are women. health care services has been transformed. will these gains all hold? will there be reversals? what we also do not know and historians will have to tell us -- maybe the panel will talk about this -- was the end ways and means we adopted for the campaign in afghanistan, where they sound? the third would be just to agree with what doug had said. the mission is not over. the mission is being redefined. is going from one or the international community has been in the lead and of the critical domains to one in which the afghans are in the lead. we are going from a position of lead to a position of support.

is a change of mission, not an end of mission. >> i want to hear what ambassador raymond has to say about this. what is the position from afghanistan? crux i certainly share the hope and vision that you have articulated. afghanistan is looking to a future where were finally comes to an end and clearly wants to be in the region. pakistan is committed to maintaining the peace, security, and civility. we look forward to a time where there is a measure of sustainability and afghanistan. we hope to support all efforts in that endeavor. very quickly, i would like to say that most important in all of this is that afghanistan belongs to afghanistan time, which is an effort we all have

to bring capacity and resources to. i say all because there is the united states with its big footprint. we are next door. to every difficult time and talents, we have supported afghanistan. i stress the position by saying, one of the primary concerns of women all over the world -- s p not just for pakistan -- is the status and position of women in the future where we hope there is not a vacuum in areas where local forces are not strong enough's or cohesive enough to bring it to gather the level of defense needed to maintain the gains.

we are obviously going to do our best to ensure that not just our border areas, but there is a security vacuum there often, those become -- they do not maintain sanctuaries for terrorists. our border areas, but there is a security vacuum there often, those become -- theyo maintain sanctuaries for terrorists. we have sanctuaries on both sides, which is struggling for pakistan. really i think we lost the peace. we may have won the war, but we lost the peace. we have to be in a position where if we think we have won thear, we have to worry about

protecting a piece that will show the way forward to a secure, stable, and economically viable afghanistan that can meet its own needs. we may be a few miles away from that. i think our job here is to without meddling to ensure it is able to remain stable, cohesive, and in the days to come. pakistan is engaged. we will continue the intensification of the dialogue at all levels. and we really hope the level of interdiction at the international border between

afghanistan and pakistan goes up. we are beginning to see a little bit of blow back from redeployment in afghanistan. i do hope a great deal of what we look towards in the future is going to go beyond the planning stages. execution of policy is crucial. maintaining the gains made by nato, isaf, and afghanistan should not be wasted. that should be our main goal right now. to preserve security and stability forll components of the population. >> i have a question for general eikenberry. i want to go back to the figures mentioned here. i can see that we killed osama bin laden. i will can see that the

deterioration -- i will can see that the deterioration of that organization al qaeda in afghanistan has been severely damaged. but we are talking huge numbers here. we are talking to thousand americans killed, 16 million americans wounded. $400 billion. and we are leaving a situation where the talent and still has a very robust defense -- taliban still has a robust defense. they have sanctuaries on the borders. i am sure the ambassador would agree, there is still a great deal of corruption. i do not think anyone believes that the taliban will be defeat or the government of pakistan is going to be a functioning western style

government. i guess what i am saying is, just cutting our losses right now because it is proven to be too difficult to do all of the things we had talked about doing -- too expensive than life and blood to continue this for an indefinite period. is that the reason for these decisions and this curren policy? >> look at the gains we have made. i will not repeat those. this audience is sophisticated enough to know what the baseline looks like. i think going for the transition strategy that has been outlined in sanctioned by the united nations is a sound way ahead. there are challenges with pakistan right now. pakistan is not on the side so to speak, this transition

becomes much more problematic in terms of treasure and more lives. there are challenges with the afghan national security forces with their sustainability and their capabilities. there are challenges on the economic domain that as for the level of international aid starts to decline over the next few yrs, it will have a shock effect on the afghan economy. there are problems with the afghan govnments. there are problems with accountability of the government. to say that at this point we need to continue to double down on our efforts, i think we are added. in the united states, look at our own economic problems. something that really struck me coming home from overseas ishe extent of o economic problems. we have infrastructure problems and education problems. i do not think t united states can afford to continue to invest in campaigns like iraq in

afghanistan like we have over the past decade. the transition has a reasonable possibility of success. we reached a point here in terms of our own means that are available. i think frankly in terms of the afghans it is time for the transition to take place. i am reading right now washington life. i came acrosss he talked about dealing with the french, washington saying if we're going to win our liberty, our army has to be the one to win the battles. we needed the french, but it is hours to win. we have reached a point where we ve done a lot. there is a good foundation. we will continue to do more. is over to the afghans at this point. >> if you ask americans inhe

wake of 9/11 what price would you be willing to pay to buy a decade without -- remember the days? i have my personal memories. everybody has their personal memori what happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. who would have thought 10 years without another repeat with al qaeda. who would have paid 10 years ago for the dismantlement and destruion that we see, ardsley but they have acknowledged over the past day and a half. not only have we been safe in terms of treasure and lives and so forth, but it has not been -- in has not gone without value. we really have gotten after al qaeda. they are on the edge of defeat.

frankly, as a 10-year investment, at least one american here that soundlike a reasonable price to pay. what you think it has been worth the investment? >> any individual life -- there is probably somebody in this audience who has lost a loved one. for that individual and family, it will never be worth it. the question had to do with america as a nation. americans bought 10 years of security from al qaeda and has -- and we have bought ourselves and side of defeating the movement. the core of the movement in pakistan and the border region. to me, never negating the individual losses that got us there and the first place, it seems that is a national price worth paying.

>> go-ahead. what do you agree also it was worth it? >> i agree. the way that doug framed it. if historians look back over the last 10 years and a rock and afghistan, will they conclude that we needed to spend as much treasure as we did, as many lives. it is hardwood you are in the midst of a campaign and at war to try to think through all the uncertainties and come up with the optimal strategy. however, having said that, i do think the united states must conduct a good review of the wars we have fought. just several brief points about is. the starting point of our counterinsurgency strategy, a good first principle stated, we are there to protect the populations. we accept that.

what does that mean? to protect against insurgents? yes. against drug cartels? i am not sure. against the tribe on the other side of the hill versus the try we are aligned with for the past five years? these are the questions that we develop a doctrine. without questioning the doctor and we start to accept that as a strategy. there is one other point that i think needs to be examined in the wars that we fought. we had a contract in the united states over the years between unspoken contract between the civilian leadership and the military leadership of our country. over the past decade, our military has started to get in more and more areas that go far from the huntington model of the military's there to manage violence. we give them autonomy and oversight in that domain.

my concernver the past decade in the wars we have fought, our military has gone into anti- corruption and on a goes. as that starts to erode from the most specific definition of what a professional officer does, manager violence, i think accountabili begins to suffer in the military ranks awell. >> to remind the american public, why you have engaged in afghanistan in the first place. that was because the u.s. security receives threats from that part of the world. terrorist groups use that against the u.s.

3000 innocent americans lost their lives. because of that. all this blood invested there. also, when afghans played -- when afghans paid the price, 1 million afghans died and 1.5 disabled. and we defeated the soviet union. at that time also afghanistan abandon the. again 10 years of that, we were really engaged. i think we should be honest to say that the surity of afghanistan, how it links the security in the region and also security in the u.s. >> you made reference earlier -- >> can i come in? >> i have a special question for you.

you made a statement that without the cooperation of pakistan this was going to be extremely difficulto do. there was a time when the united states and pakistan war allies. that seems to have ended. friends and allies. that seems to have ended. i think three out of the four people in pakistan right now consider the united states an enemy of pakistan. millions of people are asking the question, is pakistan friend or foe? what is the answer to that? >> very quickly, i think the united states and pakistan have been through an extraordinarily difficult time over the past

seven months. was suspended because we had 24 soldiers killed at the border by nato and isaf forces. doors were unlocked when an apology clean up both sides to prevent from spiraling down. yes, you have talked about this. i think it still is very strong really. a strong commitment on both sides. i can speak for pakistan that we see very little value and not rebuilding our ties with the united states and afghanistan. we are intensifying our engagement with all of our neighbors on both sides. the united states has been an ally and friend it through many

phases of our history and relationship. i sympathize with the ambassador who says afghanistan was abandoned. there is a problem. pakistan is -- we were in chicago at thsummit. we were there for giving our support to the project. to say we do not want a repeat of the 1990's. we do not want another security vacuum again. we do not want to afghanistan to slide into civil war. we have a high stake in their security. in 12 years when you say, it has been defeated with pakistan and constant marches against and

cooperation in the field. we have captured and brought to justice or have handed over to the americans over 250 high- value targets. we now areooking at a degraded core. we hope to be able to deceive them -- the feed to them with american cooperation but without impossible demands. everybody is in citing losses. we empathize and sympathize. where is theympathy for pakistan on having lost 42,000 lives in theast 12 years since we cmitted ourselves to the war? this is not a grievance narrative i want to bring to this. we want to engage in a constructive and very concrete conversation. we can takeoth of our games

for them prepare for a time when the american presence obvioly has gone down. as we are told, there will be an american presence in afghanistan. but we hope once again that the capacity and capability of the forces and their policing mechanisms remain of the quality and caliber that can take on what we hear. we hear about in search and violence. this adds to pakistan's anxiety. it really is important for us to cooperate. we do looto the united states to not make what i call an irresponsible exit. i hope that is the way we will look at it in the future. >> let me just come in and

undermine -- underlined what she just said about a common interest and our two countries. that is the ultimate achievement of this core go, to defeat al qaeda. as she rightly said, there have been more al qaeda leaders and operatives captured and killed and pakistan on than anywhere else in the world. the other core common interests th s