there in some way subject to the jurisdiction of another country. >> well, sir, the bilateral security agreement is in mind for the interests of both countries. the issue of the community is of very specific importance to the united states we understand, as was for us the issue of sovereignty and the tensions and the continued presence of international forces in afghan villages and the conduct of the war itself. with those issues resolved, as we did today, the rest was done earlier, i can go to the afghan people and argue for immunity

for u.s. troops in afghanistan in a way that afghan sovereignty will not be compromised, in a way that afghan law will not be compromised, in a way that the provisions that we arrive at through our talks will give the united states the satisfaction of what it seeks, and will also provide the afghan people the benefit that they are seeking through this partnership and the subsequent agreement. [indiscernible] that is not for us to decide. it is an issue for the united states. numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in afghanistan. it is the broader relationship that will make a difference to afghanistan and beyond in the region. the specifics of numbers are issues that the military will decide and afghanistan will have no particular concern and we are

talking of numbers and how they are deployed. [indiscernible] >> i direct my question in my own language. mr. president, the mission of the united states, after 2014 -- how this mission will be, will it be resembling the same mission as it was during 11 years, or instead, a different kind of mission? and pakistan in particular, the safe havens that are in

pakistan, what kind of policy will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason , should we have troops in afghanistan post-2014, at the invitation of the afghan government, will be to make sure that we are training, assisting, and advising afghan security forces who have taken the lead and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan and and interest the united states has, the reason we went into first place, is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghanistan. we believe we can achieve that mission in a way that is very different from the very active

presence that we have had in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presence is in afghan villages, for example, has created. that will not be a strain if there is a follow-up operation because that will not be our responsibility. that will be the responsibility of the afghan national security forces to maintain peace, order, and stability in afghan villages, in afghan territory. so i think, although obviously we are still two years away, i can say with assurance that this is a very different mission and very different task and a very different for print for the u.s., if we are able to come to

an appropriate agreement. with respect to pakistan and safe havens of there, afghanistan and the united states and pakistan all have an interest in reducing the threat of extremism in some of these border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. that will require more than simply military actions. that is really going to require political and diplomatic work between afghanistan and pakistan and the united states obviously will have an interest in facilitating and participating in cooperation between the two sovereign countries. as president karzai has indicated, it is very hard to imagine a stability and peace in the region if pakistan and afghanistan do not come to some basic agreement and

understanding about the threat of extremism to both countries and both governments and the capitals, and you are starting to see a greater awareness of that on the part of the pakistani government. >> the question that you have made about -- we talked about this issue in detail today, about the presence, the detention centers. all of these will refer to the afghan sovereignty, where the u.s. forces will pull out from villages, will go to their bases, and afghan sovereignty

will be restored, and after i 2014. we're working on these relations. these relations will have a different nature and will be working on different principles. it will december turkey or germany. we are studying these relationships, and we will do that. >> that, mr. president. as you contemplate the end of this war, can you say as commander in chief of a huge human financial costs that this is an attempt can be justified, that the world left behind will be somewhat diminished at the beginning of the war? president karzai, many independent studies have

criticized afghanistan for corruption and poor governme ance. do you stand by your assertion that much of this is de influence of foreigners? will you stand down for elections next year? >> i want us to remember why we went to afghanistan. we went into afghanistan because thousand americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling afghanistan. it was absolutely the right thing for us to go after that organization, to go after the host government that had aided and abetted or at least allowed

for these attacks to take place, and because of the core with worked of our men and women in uniform and because of the corporation and the sacrifices of afghans who had also been brutalized by the then host government, we achieved our central goal, which is -- or have come very close to achieving the central goal -- which is to decapaticate al qaeda. everything we have done over the last 10 years, from the perspective of the u.s. national security interests have been focused on that came. and at the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the

goal that we sought. now, when we also recognize the very early on was that it was in our national security interest to have a stable, sovran afghanistan that was irresponsible international actor that was in partnership with us, and that that required afghanistan to have its own security capacity and to be on a path that was more likely to achieve prosperity and peace for its own people. and i think president karzai would be the first trick knowledge afghanistan still has work to do to accomplish those goals, but there is no doubt that the possibility of peace and prosperity in afghanistan today is higher than before we went in the. -- went in.

and that is also in part because of the sacrifices that the american people have made during this long conflict. i think have we achieved everything that some might have an adjunct us a cheating in the best of senate -- us achieving in the best of some areas? ? probably not. there is a human enterprise. did we achieve our central goal, and have we been able to shape a strong relationship with a responsible afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against united states? we have achieved that goal, we are in the process of achieving

that goal, and for that we have to take our turn very military, diplomatic and intelligence teams as well as the corporation of the afghan government and the afghan people. >>, on the question of corruption, whether it has a foreign element to it, in answer to your question, there is corruption in afghanistan, there is corruption in the afghan government that we are fighting against through various means and methods. we have succeeded in certain ways, but if your question is whether we are satisfied, of course not. and on the corruption that is foreign in the origin, but puckering in afghanistan, -- but

occurring in afghanistan, i have been very clear and explicit, and i do not think that afghanistan can see this correction unless there is cooperation between us and foreign international partners on correcting some of the methods or applications, delivery of assistance to afghanistan, without corp. and without recognition of the problems. on elections, for me, the greatest of my achievements eventually as seen by the afghan people will be a proper, reorganized, interference-free election in which the afghan people can elect their next president.

certainly, i would be a very tired president and a very happily retired president. >> my questions to you, mr. president, afghan women fear that there would be the victim of the process and afghanistan. what assurances can you give them that they will not suffer because of that process? thank you. >> the united states has been very clear that any peace process, any wreckage is it -- any reconciliation process must be afghan led. it is not for the afghan it press for the nine states to determine what this peace will be, but what we have also been clear about is that from our perspective it is not possible

to reconcile without the taliban renouncing terrorism, without them recognizing the afghan constitution, and recognizing that if there are changes they want to make to how the afghan government operates, then there is an orderly constitutional process to do that, and that you cannot resort to violence. the afghan constitution protects the rights of afghan women. and the united states strongly believes that afghanistan cannot succeed unless it gives opportunity to its women. we believe that a about 3 --

we believe that about every country in the world. we will continue to voice very strongly support for the afghan constitution as protection for minorities, its protection of women, and we think that a failure to provide that protection not only will make reconciliation impossible to achieve, but also would make afghanistan's long term development impossible to achieve. the single best indicator or one of the single best indicators of a country's prosperity around the world is how does it treats its women. does it educate that half of the population? does it give an opportunity? when it does, you will police the power of everyone, -- you unleash the power of everyone,

not just some, and there was great wisdom in afghanistan ratifying a constitution that recognizes that appeared that should be part of the legacy of these last 10 years. thank you very much, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> also this afternoon, vice president biden continuing his meetings today comeuppance together a response to last month's shootings at the connecticut elementary school. he is meeting this afternoon with representatives of the video game industry. he said yesterday he will have recommendations to the president next week.

we want to hear again from hamas karzai this afternoon. he will be at georgetown university talking about the future of u.s.-afghan relations. that is live at 5:30 eastern on cnn. u.s. army colonel michael meese spoke earlier this week about kevin terrorism. he is a former deputy chief of staff to general david petraeus. he also founded the combating terrorism department at west point, where he teaches. he spoke at the world affairs council for just over an hour. [applause] >> is truly an honor to be here with the alabama affairs council. general cleveland, all of the distinguished members of the alabama world affairs council,

it is great to be here at the museum. it is the first time i have ever been to montgomery, so i greatly appreciate the invitation. general cleveland is nothing if not persistent in coming after speakers. the first time he called me, i was in afghanistan, he wondered why i cannot come back here to do this. being a distinguished graduate of the u.s. military academy class of 1949, and a's during r, and to think it was 60 years ago last september, if i get the history right, that general cleveland became an ace, it is truly remarkable, so please join me in thanking him for his service. [applause] i also appreciate them

recognizing my father as a member of the reagan and ministration. when i teach at west point, they think the reagan administration was sometimes after the taft administration, so people who recognize the name of edwin meese iii, it is a to be here, and i appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to come here and be better informed about what our nation is doing with regard to combating terrorism and what we are doing as a people and as a military, and where that is going. i will tell you a little bit about that. i want to stay for all of you and especially for c-span that these are my personal academic a notin's -- opinions and those of the knights its government. as you will hear, it should be the position of unites states government. [laughter]

i come to this audience with a bit of trepidation. there are so many people who pay attention to these issues that i have to remain humble in these circumstances, and when i do that i begin by telling myself the story which is a true story about the u.s. as abraham lincoln and canadian authorities off the coast of newfoundland in 1995. here is how the radio communication took place. the u.s. said on the radio, please divert york course 15 degrees to the south to avert collision. canadians responded, negative. you divert your course 15 degrees to the north to avoid the collision. this is the captain of the u.s. navy warship. divert your course to 15 degrees to the south. canadians responded, no, you divert your course 50 degrees to the north.

this is the aircraft carrier uss lincoln, the second-largest in the atlantic fleet. we are accompanied by numerous support vessels. i demand you divert your course 50 degrees to the south, or countermeasures will be taken. this is a lighthouse. your call. [laughter] i will remain humble and not be too arrogant as i give you some thoughts about terrorism and what i thought i would do is disrupt you what we have done at west point. it is the follow on to that with the combating terrorism center at west point, and the second part is to tell you about what we teach cadets with regard to iraq, where i have spent 12 months on three different tores, and talk about afghanistan where i just came back last summer,

spent from the summer of 2010 and the summer of 2011 in afghanistan, and then talk a little bit about the way forward with regard to national secret. i will try to leave plenty of time for questions and look forward to your questions at the end. when the world trade towers collapsed on 9/11, it was 45 miles south of new york city. i was teaching a class at the time, and we had a scheduled briefing by the dean of the academic ward from the west point class of 1968. he was supposed to speak about what they were going to major in, and it got all the sophomores and an auditorium that holds 1100 cadets, and it was 12:30 right after lunch on 9/11, and he said, events like this is when the military and

the army go into action and get things done. and that is what we have had to wrestle with at west point, of what you do, how do you change the curriculum, what do you do to prepare the young men and women at west point that are going to have the awesome responsibility of leading soldiers in combat during a period of violence in which we were not sure about? when we looked around at this, literally the next couple of nights, several of us went down to new york city to help with recovery efforts at ground zero, and one of our graduates from the class of 1977 who was the head of the american mercantile exchange said, we ought to study this at west point to better prepare the cadets. so we took a look at various histories and what we wanted to do, and we were reassured by these words from the president

-- when we saw the challenges of an ideologically driven hatred that would be with us for a generation, and then we realized that we had done this before and that these were at the time not the words of president bush, but the words of president eisenhower when he was talking about communism. and throughout the cold war, we had in most universities, here in alabama and throughout the united states, soviet studies departments and entire fields of professors that were looking at communism. but we did not have a similar set of people that were studying the radical islamist salafi jihadi ideology within our universities in general and especially not at west point or within the military.

so we thought there needed to be an important linkage, and so we came up with a vision that you can see on this slide to look at the intellectual and strategic issues. of course, the united states government has a very sophisticated intelligence apparatus that does an excellent job with many professionals in washington and throughout the world. they're very good at analyzing intelligence, a very good at providing information up to decision makers. but there was not really a linkage between a lot of the strategic study that was happening in colleges and universities, many in near east studies departments and others, and the military. what we found was west point was in a unique position because in a sense, similar to the area university's sun it is both a

dot-mil and a dot-edu. we were able to bring academics down from the ivory towers. ludicides said a nation that makes a great distinctions between its warriors and scholars will have its fighting done by force and its thinking done by -- our purpose was to put together an organization that could link together the best besttwo aspects of the united states, the best we are in the world out, the best military and the best academic, to be able to address the critical issues of terrorism. so we came up with a mission to have the center educate, advise, and conduct research to

provide information, both for current leaders and the future leaders, the cadets that we are teaching, about the current and future threats of terrorism. we do that to educating cadets, through doing research, and actually a limited part of what we do is policy analysis, because the professionals in washington concentrate on policy and analysis do that and much more rapid fashion than we do up at west point, but is still an important part that is derived from a lot of the things that we do. when the first and most important thing that we do every day is teach cadets, and we concentrate on providing that education in a rigorous curriculum that is designed for every cadet at west point that we have integrated into the ss307 international relations course, so they understand the roots of terrorism and that some

of the counter-terrorism actions that are taken by our nation so that every todacadet gets that. in addition to the core instruction that is taught to every cadet, we created the first minor in terrorism studies. in addition to taking civil engineering, arabic, or economics, they can get a minor in terrorism studies where they take five courses that focus on terrorism, homeland security, and related courses, and then are able to focus that in their particular area to prepare them for their lifetime service in the army. as we developed this curriculum and published text books and published articles, all we found that others were interested in what we were doing, and so the assistant director of the fbi

for counter-terrorism came to west point and said the fbi could benefit from this kind of education as well. and so they asked west point to go and expand our education for cadets to what we now call practitioner education. we send people from west point and combating and they teach each new about a boc of instruction on terrorism to reinforce the things that are taught at the f.b.i. academy. we also send them out around the nation to be able to work with joint terrorism task forces, which is not just f.b.i. people, but also law enforcement and others to educate them on the terrorist threat and the changes. and then creating a virtual network because of the

connections of everybody on the internet so that when pracktigsners that are out there in police departments or the f.b.i. are studying a particular case or aspect of terrorism they can reach back into the literature and research at west point and get a little bit more expertise and the history and the background and the theory that they're able to do. >> what kind of research do we do? again, i apologize for staying here at the podium, normally i would walk around but the c-span people would not be able to hear me which fy get to any sensitive things i'll move away from the microphone so it can't be picked up. what we found was a lot of people were doing a lot of writing about terrorists but frequently they weren't reiding what the terrorists were writing themselves.

one of the huge advantages of the militaries actions against al qaeda was it cut off the about for al qaeda to community kate with each other, it put people in hiding as we know of osama bin laden hiding and others hiding in various places in pakistan and other places in the middle east. frequently they are communicating with each other on the internet. and by reading the web pages, we're able to actually go through and we have people that speak about five different languages in the combat terrorism center, we're able to translate and see what they are saying among and between each other. and they are remarkably truthful on these web sites because it's a way they provide command guidance to their own

operations. it's the way they identify objectives and they separate near enemies and far men mis. so by looking at that research and what they are say ago among and between each other, it gives us important insights. the second thing we combine that is with the harmony data base. it's maintained in washington and it contains all the battlefield documents that forces pick up on the battlefield and get cot logged and put into this electronic data base. it's very useful for the intelligence agencies. but these are all things that are captured from the battlefield from terrorists themselves, from the enemy, so once forces have gone through and found out whether there is immediate targeting value of this, it goes into this large

data base. one of the values of having a combating terrorism center at west point is not only can i hire people with ph.d.'s middle eastern studies and terrorism, but i also can get them security clearances so they can access these data bases and request the declassification of many of these documents. because they came from the terrorists themselves. in many cases they can be declassified so you can take what the terrorists are writing and we have captured from them and combine it with the literature they are putting on the web with the scholarly journal that is are out there and we can learn a lot more about what is happening within terrorism. and that's what we teach to our cadets every day in class. what i'll do is i'll reflect those as i talk about iraq and

afghanistan and tell you a little bit about some of the lesson that is we've learned from iraq and afghanistan because frequently although we've been involved in those conflicts for over a decade now, often many of the details are not sufficiently covered, which we will now correct by covering this on c-span. 23r50e7b9ly the media when you turn on the tv at night would be covering the card card's failed marriage or the newest contestant on "dancing with the stars" rather than capture the very complex action that is your military is taking in iraq and afghanistan. when i talk to the cadets i have to explain to them that iraq is frequently different from what you think. most of the places that are pop lated in afghanistan look like the lower left corner there.

think kansas and not new mexico. and in fact, there is snow in afghanistan. that's one of the general's assistants who made a snow ball up in the mountains in northern afghanistan and you can see there one of sa dam's lakes outside the palace and a fruit market there in afghanistan. well, it's important because of the pace of history when we now withdraw all forces from afghanistan, people don't remember what has happened over the last six years. you think back six years ago to december of 2006, afghanistan was literally on fire. this map is ofing baghdad and each of these plots are actually incidents that took place. this is from january of 2006 to the end of 2006 with the increase of civilian deaths and

inclees of improvised explosive device that is took place. iraq was in the middle of a full blown civil war with 3,000 iraq quis killing each other every single month and there was very little thought to how that was going to correct itself. and many of you may remember the political controversy that faced the bush administration at the time. the important decision that is were made at the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007 and are now coming out in all of the books are use to feel go back and look at. it was an important decision where president bush agreed with prime minister malachi the prime minister of iraq to surge 30,000 troops into iraq and 30,000 troops into baghdad to

be able to address this civil war that was happening in iraq and try to keep it from becoming a much broader, much more dangerous, much more difficult conflict. but the important aspect at the time the three star commander over there is now the chief of staff of the army and was the core commander in charge of all the units there and general petraeus came in. what they recognized at the time was adding the additional 30,000 2r507s, if you did not change the tactics and the procedures at the time would probably not have worked as well. so subsequently, it was important to change three major ideas. and i'll explain those because it explains a lot of what we may be doing going in the

future with regard to counterterrorism and the distinction between counterterrorism and counter insurge si. this was the doctrine that was developed with regard to counter insurge si. the important of it is that it address it is population and focuses instead of focusing exclusively on the enemy focuses on the population that you see there, some of which support the government, some of which are newt tral or passive, and some of which are part of the insurge enssi. it addresses all of the aspects of the insurge si or terrorists and some people think that it's just a lot of hearts and mind stuff. all of this stability thing where we work on government and economics and services and those sorts of things, and

that's important. but it's equally important to recognize that it also is critical to have offensive operations, and that's a lot of the counterterrorism force that is are able to capture and kill the snurgs or terrorists in the area as well as the defensive force that is protect the u.s. soldiers and the host nation soldiers, in this case in iraq, building up the host nation so that they have the force that is are sufficient to be able to address the insurgency at the time. the objective is moving left to right where you have more people supportive of the government and a much smaller insurgency that is involved. this theory applies to iraq and afghanistan and more broadly applies to counterterrorism as we go forward in the future.

the second dig distinction that took place was splitting the opposition. if you look on this slide, in the center we knew we were supporting the government which included most of the people in iraq that were broadly supportive of what was happening with the malachi government, again, with some problems that happen in any kind of political situation. the distinction was on the left-hand side, you had the extremist over here, al qaeda in iraq, the islamic state of iraq, those were the extremist that had to be captured or killed. on the other extreme you had the extremist that were supported by iran, the secret cells and special groups that also had to be captured or

killed as part of counterterrorism operations. the real question is what do you do with the people in the middle? those groups that are negotiate completely in the snurgets camp or the government camp. this is one of the key change that is is troferede as the end bar awakening. a man came to him and said look, we're tired of the taliban forcing us to follow them, not letting us do our normal trucking businesses, forcing our women into forced marriages, not allowing people or chopping off their fingers if they're caught smoking, we will stop opposing you if you'll allow us to be part of

the defense of iraq. and in fact, this is how the program called the sons of iraq was created which resulted in 103,000 men that had been opposing the regime to put down their weapons and get enrolled and included finger plints and face shots and iris scans so you could identify them if they turned up involved in other northeast fares things and was an important way of reducing the number of terrorist that is you had to go after. as many leaders have testified before congress, general petraeus and many others we're not going to kill our way out of this war. it has a lot to do with information and it has to do with people being reconciled to their government. so this was the second important idea.

the third critical idea that we did was to make sure to communicate that. and many of you probably remember the unprecedented congressional testimony in front of the house armed services committee and foreign relations committee and the senate foreign relations committees where general petraeus testified for seemed like 19 hours straight. because it was important to communicate this to the american people as well as to the congress of the united states which at the time included four presidential candidates, at the senator clinton, senator biden, senator mccain and senator obama. and what was being challenged at the time, you may remember the advertisement that said that general petraeus was being fast and loose with statistics. and let me show you what those statistics were.

these are the total amount of violent incidents in iraq from 2004 all the way up to 010. and when the insurgent nts started the psyches of violence it went up substantially and the question is whether this was a reduction in violence preceding the testimony or whether general petraeus was making that up. he wasn't making that up and we didn't know it at the time but here is what ended up happening. over the past five years, with the effectiveness of the surge and especially the building up of the iraq security forces to be able to handle the violence that was taking place in iraq, to isolate and eliminate the insurgency, they were able to bring iraq down to the level of violence that could be handled locally. another important decision, i mentioned the first one made by

president bush to have the surge, the second was made by president obama shortly after he came into office. you may remember he said his proposal toffs do a responsible with drawl of forces from iraq which was initially thought of as pulling all the forces out in 16 months. after consulting with his advisors president obama decided to withdraw instead of the rapid line there, to go down to 50,000 troops in 19 months and then to withdraw all of the forces by the end of 2011 which was part of the agreement that president bush had established. that became particularly important for the iraq government to be able to stabilize after the elections and be able to deal with circumstances that are on the ground. again, iraq is not the place i would spend my next anniversary

vacation. but you should be proud and note the work that has been done by putting together a counterterrorism strategy. we contributed i think in a small part to that at the combating terrorism center by these documents and exposing what was actually happening there in iraq. a special forces group seized the human resources command essentially of al qaeda and iraq with the sin jar records. and they ended up identifying all of the foreign fighters in iraq. well when we published this report that you see on the left a bright news week reporter went back to the main city in libya where most of these foreign fighters came from and talked to people in that town to find out why they created so

many foreign fighters. and in fact the combating terrorism center published all of them on the web so these are the actual pictures of the fighters. as a result of this it became a cover story for news week all across the middle east and pointed out the terrorists and how they duped a lot of the people to go and fight for them and as a result the number of foreign fighters coming into iraq slowed down from over 100 a month to just a handful each missouri that come bind with the operation that is were taking place. again it reinforces the important point that terrorists will appeal to any kind of tendency they can to get recruits but once they are exposed, the line of recruiting

will dwindle. we'll go through afghanistan because that is in the news this week with president karzai coming to washington to meet with people in the defense department and president obama. obviously afghanistan is vitally important as well being the source of the 9/11 attacks as well as being in between pakistan and i ran both of which are problem mats i can 23r9 united states. what people may not recognize -- there were actually no u.s. force there is until president obama gave his speech on the first of december 2009 at west point where there will be a surge of 30,000 troops many of whom went to this area of candhar and this area of hellman both army troops and marines to be able to address

the terrorist threlt. again, they did a comprehensive approach as understand iraq and here are the graffs that are relatively similar to those that i showed you. the difference is from 2008 to 2012 in afghanistan, in taffing fighting is mostly in the summer, these are the summers of 2008 to the beginning of 2012 where you see a decrease in the actual year over year violence in afghanistan through the application of both the american military forces, our allied military forces and especially the build up of the afghanistan security forces. in a little bit more detail what people here in the united states frequently don't realize is that the united states has been leading a coalition of 49 other nation that is are in afghanistan. so this really is the world's

main efforts. in fact, three of the divisions the most violent areas are commanded by americans, but three of the other regional commands are commanded by a turkish general, by a german general in the north and by an italian general out on the western border with iran. so these come bind forces have been effective in addressing many of the issues in afghanistan. now again, none of them provide a knock out blow. a lot of the discussion will continue to take place in washington over the next several days about what the future is going to be. and you hear lots of press reports about what will happen from now to 2014 which is when nato has said that all of the combat missions in afghanistan will end and part of the

discussion that will take place in washington which we can address in questions and answers is what will remain there as we continue to have a very important part of the u.s. strategy. but what we've learned is that this was an opportunity for many terrorists organizations to be able to leverage the weakness of the state of afghanistan to operate there, both their legal activities you see on the left-hand side of the slide as well as their ill leefl activities there on the right in which they extort money. one of the most noteworthy networks that we've written about is the hi canny network and our study of the network we sent people over to afghanistan that went with many of the counterterrorism forces that were going after them, documented what they were doing in terms of undermining the

state in afghanistan, in terms of trying to have spectacular attacks that got a lot of press but didn't do a lot of damage and put that together in an ack dem mick report. that report as well as study led to the united states declaring the terrorist network being on the treasuries financing list so that nobody can do business with that network which allows them -- prevents them from doing a lot of the action that is they were taking. another report we did was on the deadly vanguards. this documented from arabic sources the fact that 94% of those killed by al qaeda were actually muslims. this got huge coverage in the arabic media. in fact adam ga dan the al

qaeda spokesman came out trying to refute the report. but all of the people on the web in all of the muslim web sites saw the rigorousness and saw what was really happening with al qaeda that they were killing many more muslims than westerners in their attacks. finally, as a result of the work we were doing, when the documents that were captured when osama bin laden was killed, the decision was made to give those document oferse to the combat terrorism center where they were declassified so we could look in detail about what was happening and the state of mind of osama bin laden as he was trying to get control of al qaeda as it got more and more diffuse and more and more attacking of civilians. so in fact, probably the best

credit to this and i'll play this just briefly. this is the number one person in al qaeda, at this time he was number two, that spent many of his videos and this is how they communicate. this is an actual al qaeda video. i'll speak over it because most of you don't understand the arabic. he is reading and this is their video they got from our website. they've got some very good video people there in al qaeda and talked about the challenge that is we were presenting to them. as i tell mica dets, if the number one guy in al qaeda is reading our stuff, you should read your homework too. so with that, i can talk more in detail about the future of counterterrorism. in general, it's going to be with a lot less money. as you can see this is the

federal budget. most of the federal budget is on entitlements, but the largest part of the discretionary budget is in defense. that is going to continue to be reduced. this has gone down from half of the federal budget to 20% of the federal budget so as president obama met with the defense leaders a year ago this january, he talked about the defense strategy moving forward. again, i want to leave plenty of time for questions and answers. but briefly talked a lot about leveraging as we're down sizing, leveraging the people, probably having fewer people as the army and marine corps are cutting down, maintaining our dominance in critical areas like sea, space and cyberspace.

but continuing to engage in shaping operations with regard to combating terrorism, recognizing that we're not going to be able kill our way out of this but it's going to be a combination of all the aspects of power and others that are going after the terrorists networks. we see this in the operations that have taken place throughout the middle east, in the philippines. and various parts of africa and becomes an important part of what we're doing. the final slide that i'll show you is of remember inc. on the's portrait. remember inc. on the stampede is what we talk to our cadets about, about the challenges of the uncertainty they will be facing as soldiers in a counterterrorism environment. it shows this environment they are facing is not precise and

orally. the leader they have to be is empfide by the stampede and the circumstances are frequently confusing. the rain is blowing sideways, there is dark and ominous clouds and seems like it's gretting barely brighter as he goes forward. some of the parts of the organization are way ahead and some may or may not catch up. and you have a lightning bolt that is going off that you have to confront. well on behalf of the people up at west point, i want to tell you it's been our pleasure and honor to be able to teach the cadets that are there that are understanding more and more of what they have to confront with regard to terrorism and terrorists and they are up to that task. last summer my son happened to be graduating with the class of

2012. the class of 2012 picked for their class motto for more than ourselves. i think that that reflects the generation of young men and young women that are coming to the military academy at west point and all of the other service academies or enlisting in the military services. they are the best that our nation has to offer and it has been our pleasure at west point to be able to educate them. i hope that i've conveyed to you a little bit of what we talked to them about and what we're doing in the combating terrorism center. thank you very much. [applause]

>> i would like your take on the advantages of the -- [indiscernible] >> just to restate the question in case it did not come through,

the challenge of narcotics and drugs in the way forward. it is in fact, a critical issue and a huge problem because drugs are one of the largest industries, if you will, in afghanistan. there have been varies attempts on drugs -- at erat itself of pot fields. in general, these are my personal observations not necessarily those of government officials, most of the drugs eratification programs imposed by outside forces are usually not very effective. the reason they are not very effective is because if you're just eradicating poppy fields you are getting upset farmers who are the people you are trying to win on your side with

regard to counterinsurgency. on the other hand, to have a program with alternative crops, replacing poppies with other kind of crops that can be legally grown, even though they don't have the profit margins subcy dieding that seems to be effective. the only thing that has worked, last year in april of 2011 was an operation that was going after the producers after they paid for the the narcotics before it got transported out of afghanistan. so you're targeting the people who are purchasing it and that can be done in a much more

focused area. also focusing on the precuser chemicals that are necessary to convert the poppy into narcotics has also been important. it is something that the afghan government is trying to address. they do have a counter narcotics program. it has had mixed results and it is going to continue to be a problem. it really has to be something that has to be addressed both within afghanistan and internationally. certainly from the western previous -- perspective reducing the price of drugs would be a huge contribution as well. >> [indiscernible]

>> i think that -- good question. jay johnson who was the general council who commented about when the authorities would change because we've been conducting, again, armed conflict against armed terrorists. i think it will be different in different spaces and different areas. whether you are dealing with ungoverned spaces in parts of africa, yemen, afghanistan, in the philippines and each of those have to have a different -- the national command authority, the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state and

intelligence officials have to have the flexibility to use the appropriate tool with the appropriate reporting procedures back to congress and all of us as the american people. i think there will be probably some aspect of counterterrorism that continues to be carried out for a long period of time. again, the president can also constrain what areas and what places those forces are going to be while still being able to operate under the other kinds of authorities, the law enforcement authorities would take place. the fact that we continue to have ongoing threats against the united states, the fact that we have people who are trying to come into this country and trying to radicalize others both here as well as europe it means it will be a problem, i think

for the future. it doesn't mean you're going to have title 10 operations across the world but i think there will still be a need for authorities to be able to -- to exercise by the secretary of defense and the president and others. >> [indiscernible]

>> if you are advising your students i think cyber -- the question was what is the future of cyber and cyber terrorism. i think there will be more tons with regard to offense, defense, and putting together a network of people that are involved. the secretary of the army has established a center, the army cyber center at west point that is going to focus on cyber, maybe you can get the director of that to come down next year to talk about it. but as we have looked at this, it is going to be different from the kinds of things i talked about. it is public with regard to governmental authorities and very much private industry are involved and all of us have an

important part to play with regard to cyber defenses. right now a lot of the legislation is being worked out, i would point you to secretary petraeus' speech that he gave in new york city. it was one of the best articulation that you have to have a partnership where you need a public/private partnership with both, the best we can bring from government and the best we can bring from private industry as well as the best practices from education. that is really where a lot of the cutting-edge developments are coming from. the other aspect of it is the threat is frequently not just from government agencies or terrorist agencies but private

individuals. i'm sure you have studies the -- studied the individuals, could have hugely negative affects with regard to cyber. >> in trying to understand what is going on in the world, i feel like the rider in the stampede. could you recommend -- [indisopen certainible -- [insis certainible] >> that is a good question. i think being informed in audiences like this is kind of people you bring in is important. i would put an advertisement for

you our own stuff. if you go to our website you can sign up there and get the c.t.c. -- in fact, here is a picture. i don't have it. it is our monthly paper that goes and analyzes the different areas of terrorism. it is one of the sources. there are some very good journalists that are out there that are covering these. most of the top journalists from the top newspapers, like "the

new york times" and "the washington post" they cover these in the fair amount of detail on a current basis. and many of the others cover this in more detail as well. there is a lot of information out there but with a little bit of scratching the surface you can get to more of the details. >> [indiscentury irble -- indiscenturyible] >> well, the efforts in somalia -- yeah the question was how effective how are efforts been in the region of africa both in

somalia and mali. they have been mixed. to get back to previous question, there is a magazine called "the prism" that google at the national defense university. it had an article that detail this and i'm not an expert in this area so i will fall back on others. it has said that it has been mixed but has been -- by concentrating on building up some of the local forces in mali it has been helpful in terms of national forces. that has been less successful in somalia. beyond that i'm not an expert in that area in particular so i would not want to go too much

past that. see if there is another question. >> [indiscenturyible] >> good question. we're following these things reason to internet are we sure we're not being played? that is one of the reasons we do this in an academic and rigorous way. we publish all of our results. when we get downloaded documents we'll right a 150-page report then we will publish those documents in english and area big. we'll invite schloras to read

that and see if we're getting the story right or if we're getting played and we have it wrong. it is the rigger that we put behind it. we have everybody looking at these sorts of things to see if -- if we're just looking at a website, we don't write things on a daily basis or hitting a newspaper's person deadline. but we look at this and we want to make sure we don't take it out of context so we combine it with other literature written out there. could we get some of this stuff wrong? we possibly could but hopefully it will be picked up by others. if you make the assumption that the truth is on our side and more information is better and getting that information out there is critical, then you guard against being played so to speak. i would rather have the information get out there and

told we're wrong and have the information corrected than not have the public discussion that you need on the issues. the question is what is the role of religion either from the terrorist perspective or the combating counterterrorism perspective. from the terrorist perspective what we have mostly found is that adhere rens from al qaeda broadly misinterpreted and taken

extremist views and perverted islam as a religion to be able to coerce and otherwise control their followers in doing things that are very much what the tenants of islam would say. we quoted a scholar and others that talked about the prohibition of killing innocent civilians. when they talk about the majority of people being killed by al qaeda are muslims contradicted the religion of islam and appointmented out they

were violating the tenants. so in general, helping to highlight the perversion of the religion in terms of the information we are doing has been helpful and that is what was done with the deadly vanguards report. it identified the problems that al qaeda was having when it was killing civilians it violates what many of the other moderate, main stream muslim scholars were saying. with regard to the counterterrorism focus, it depends upon where you are. again, it is interesting because from the united states we have separation of church and state so it doesn't play in the things that we're doing. but you are in the government of the islamic republic of

afghanistan which is in fact, an islamic republic. so islam is an important part of the host nation that we're in in afghanistan and it does influence the policies of the nations we're working with. so understanding the religious components both on the terrorist side and the counterrorist side is particularly important. very good question. >> i wand to hear your comments about -- i want to hear your comments about what is -- [indiscernible]

>> good question. assessment of the insider threat and the afghan military. the insider threat is clearly one of the biggest challenges that we have faced. i think when people write the history of this and they go back, it started out with a very small element of insiders that were motivated by -- either people that were imitating afghan soldiers or afghan soldiers themselves. then the taliban realized this is a very effective tactic. so they infiltrated people and had them attack other afghan

soldiers or they turned afghan soldiers to be able to attack the military. it is clearly one of the most significant, negative developments over the last year. my rec collection is there -- recollection is there have been about 60 attacks over the last year. so many, many additional procedures, counter intelligence sort of things to weed out people and all the procedures that can be taken to protect soldiers are being taken. again, it is a combat environment which is extremely difficult to be able to deal

with. now, with regard to the effectiveness of the afghan forces, by our standards, it is difficult to assess them at any measurable level. it is one of the things to guard against is the mirror imminajing that will they have to be as successful as nato forces or u.s. forces at any particular point. the afghan forces and when you look in detail at many of the reports, many of them with some assistance are able to conduct combat operations. a recent report in december talked about the varies readyness of afghan military units and afghan police units. both had expanded in capacity but they still have a long ways

to go. they are out there tragically fighting and dying for their own country at a much, much larger rate than the u.s. many of them are doing a good job, but again, the results depend from unit to unit and area to area. a couple of good examples when they had spectacular attacks, i was there in april of 2012 when there was a big attack. those were entirely done by the afghan special police units they are going responded and they responded very effectively killing 43 counter snurpt. it got a lot of press but they did demonstrate they had the capacity. you have to look in detail at what is happening in each

circumstance. i think we're about at the end of the time. sir? go ahead. >> [indiscernible] [applause] >> thank you, sir. [applause] >> at the white house today afghanistan's president hamid karzai met with president obama. he will be speaking at georgetown university at 5:30 eastern time. both leaders talked about what

lies ahead after u.s. troops withdrawal from afghanistan in 2014. you can watch the joint press conference online at the c-span library. we'll have president karzai's remark live on c-span at 5:30 eastern. vice president biden is meeting with the video game industry. he met yesterday with the n.r.a. and gun retailers. on wednesday, he met with victims of gun violence. the vice president says he will have recommendations to pass on to the president next week. earlier today, at the pentagon the secretary of the air force michael donley talked to reporters. he was joined by air force chief of staff general mark welsh and this is 45 minutes. >> good morning, all. thanks for being here.

the chief and i thought this would be a valuable opportunity to begin the new year by sitting down with you to discuss the state of our air force and the issues and challenges we expect to address in the year ahead and beyond. to start i would like to thank the senate approving the national defense thorgs act. and thanks to the president for signing the bill into law. this important legislation provides policy guidance that enables d.o.d. to provide for our fighters and their families and to protect the american people. it demonstrated strong bipartisan commitment to national security. we hope this success may spur progress on critical issues that still remain. those issues include issues to

develop a balanced deficit plan. a final f.y. 13 appropriation bill to replace the continued resolution and the president's f.y. 14 budget. congress' recent decision to delay pulling the trigger on sequestration for two months was a positive step. we welcome the delay, we're still deeply concerned about what may happen should we fail to reach deficit reduction agreement by the end of february. our nation's ongoing budget gymnastics exerts consequences on the air force and create an atmosphere of unease among our uniformed and civilian airman. failure to enact a budget along

with the overhanging threat of large cuts creates wasteful churn. given we are now into the second quarter of fiscal year 2013, we can no longer live under the uncertainty of sequestration and the continuing resolution without taking action now. as secretarying petraeus described yesterday even though we're not presuming this worst case will occur planning for the third and fourth quarter es is required. we received the secretary's guidance to begin implementing prudent measures that will help met investigate the budget risks. the air force is currently turning the secretary's guidance into direction to our major

commands which we expect to issue in the next few days. impacts to the air force will be in the same categories outlined by the secretary yesterday. civilian hiring restrictions, curtailing nonreadyness or nonessential flying or travel, curtailing major purchases such as furniture and deferring nonemergency facilities sustainment and modernization. to be clear, these nire term actions cannot fully mitigate sequestration should that occur. if we do not have resolution by march, sequestration will have immediate and negative impacts on air force readyness specifically flying hours and maintenance. as secretary petraeus has reiterated the focus now must be on taking sequestration off the table and enacting a budget

agreement that will stabilize defense planning for the remainder of f.y. 13 and the years ahead. looking ahead our air force will continue to balance competing defense needs among the size of our structure, today's readyness and the future. from previous draw downs we've learned that during periods of austerity tough decisions have to be made to avoid a hollow military, one that looks good on paper but has more units and equipment than it can support, lack the resources to train and maintain them or keep up with advancing technologies. to avoid the pearls of a hollow air force we think the best path forward is to become smaller that will improve in capability over time. more than two decades of war and

other operations have had an impact on our readyness. straining our airman and their families and taking a toll on equipment. the need for modernization is pervasive across our air force while programs and modifications have largely kept our inventories up-to-date the cost of maintenance and sustainment is rising as budgets are flattening. new threats and technologies require new investments. like the other services, the air force will work with our defense and national leadership to find-tune our plans and programs as we continue front the security environment and the nation's fiscal challenges as well. we will adjust and compromise as necessary but we will need broad consensus with the congress on the way forward to avoid a

hollow military. this must be our priority. despite challenges i'm please to note that our air force has made progress in many areas and can point a number of accomplishments. we work thrurd the active component structure challenges that were part r part of the f.y. 13 president's budget proposal to produce a compromise that congress passed, unfreezing forestructure changes. we confronted the problems of assaults and basic military training and convicted offenders. we're strengthening our sexual assault efforts and recent initiatives in this area, include the englishment of the special victims council program. with regard to the space launch

the air force completed nine space launch campaigns and this makes 55 consecutive launches to date and 90 successful national security space missions. we implemented a new acquisitions strategy to efficiently purchase up to 36 corpses while intro dution a competitive environment. that is starting as early as f.y. 15. this is giving new entrance a new path. our pro curement strategy is driving down satellite costs with saving more than $1 billion on the satellites and savings projected of more than $500 million for other program. we resolved as best we know how

on the incidents on f.-22 and put this aircraft on the path for full operational capability. with the completion of our operational utility evaluation training at the air force base will begin this month. combat operations in iraq are complete but missions continue in afghanistan and we remain a nation at war. over the holidays the chief master sergeant of the air force had an opportunity to visit the airman. we found that despite the challenges of deployment the moral of our airman is high. america's airman are focused on their mission and they demonstrate every day what it means to be apart of the world's

finest air force. airman around the world work to support each other and these airman, active duty guard, and the civilian is the reason our air force remains strong. general welsh and i are committed to doing all we can to ensure that the air force stays that way, strong, ready, and capable of delivering air power wherever or when ever the nation calls. another major milestone was the arrival our our chief of staff who has brought new energy and inspirational leadership to the top of our air force team. so before we take your questions i will ask general welsh to make a few remark. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for taking the time

for being here. i apologize for my extra hardware this morning, it is ugly in these sequestration meetings. i think it was the first time i realized how big it really is. i'm recovering slowly. yesterday we releaseden an updated vision for the air for. the intent is to capture what the air force is all about and what we should be focused on in the future. it highlights airman as a strength and service. they will be our contributions to the nation's defense and the air force's calling cards. it also embraces innovation is a trait of every airman and i believe that is true. it is about 1,000 words long and takes you three minutes to read.

we can get you a copy if you would like to take a look. the bottom line, we continue to remain the world's greatest air force. that is what the vision says. it is not news that we have budget uncertainty. i think we can be confident that the budgets will shrink but how far remains to be seen. we have already made tough budget decisions. those decisions translate into an active duty of 329,000 airman, about the same when we became a separate service back in 1947. in the last 10 years we retired about 1,900 airplanes. we dropped about 30,000 active duty in our active component. none of those things are bad it is just a reflective of today's economic environment. i would like to tell you that what it mean to us, as we move

to the smaller and more capable we have to be ready to protuct our airman. if we don't, the entire joint forces is impacted and impacted in a significant way. the director of the international guard, the chief of reserve and i have spent a lot of time focused on communication and coordination between the three components. we have put the same effort towards the communication between the national guard and the air guard. the mix between the active reserve components is a con tin shouse issue. i categoryize the group to be energetic and improving. we're committed. everyone in the group is committed to ensure the future when we come forward with forestructure mixed

recommendations to the secretary, the seaks of defense, and the president, and congress we're going to speak with one voice. we're going to do everything we can to get there. the first memory i have of any grandfather pulling up in a sweet car. i could show you a whole bunch of sweet b-52's. when we delivered the last tanker we'll still have about 200 sweet tankers on the ramp. the difference is that my grand dad's car has an auto plate on it. in 2028 your kids are going to be flying those planes around the world. modernization is an option. it does not get smaller we have to figure out how to make modernization happen.

we're on a good track with our bomber program and spails program that will do that. it is a good start but it is just a start. we have to figure out how to keep it moving. we've been flying combat stories since 1991 nonstop. decreasing forestructure combined to create a problem that showed itself around 2003 and our readyness has been declining ever since. we had to put full spectrum training on the back burner. that has had an impact on us. what makes any air force an advantage for america is our global range, speed, flexibility and our striking power. that is what air forces do. it is not always a pretty business but it is what we do. responsiveness requires a high

level of readyness and sacrificing that sack friday fices air power and i believe that is a bad idea. that is in the background as we look to the future and put our plans together. as america responsible draws down from afghanistan and rebounces to the pacific the demand for air power will likely remain about the same. i don't think it will change significantly. we'll continue to fly. we'll build partner capacity, we'll stand the nuclear watch and we'll stand ready for the next call of action. i'm pretty confident that there is one coming. whatever resources we do have are used responsibly. that's our job. we'll do that to the best of our ability. we're lucky because we have a

secret weapon. we have 700,000 unbelievable, dedicated and committed men and women who help us do it every day. we're privileged to stand by beside them. at the end of this month a couple of great airman are retiring, the director of the international guard. he led the guard fantastically well and in association with me throughout his entire career. he is a grade officer, he's a grade lead earn to me he is also a role model and a great friend. as he and his wife move on to their next chapter the entire air force is going to miss him. another airman is going to retire and move to south carolina. he is a special human being. if he's been the backbone of our

air force for the last three and half years paul has been the heart. every airman is going to miss them and we wish them huge success and happiness in the future. thanks for listening and thanks for taking your time to be here. we're ready for questions. >> under this curtailment that the secretary announced yesterday, what is going to take a hit immediately? is r&d on the table? are you confident that you will be able to build the long-range bomber that you've been ready to build? >> they have asked us to focus on adjustments and spending pattern that is recoverable to the extend possible. i think it will effect all parts of our air force, we are focused on the operation and maintenance

parts of our air force which fuel the day-to-day operations of the air force. so those are the areas i think will have sort of an immediate impacts. we've talked about -- i talked about facility sustainment and restoration. i think that is large part of our operation and maintain, funding to support all of the facilities, buildings that we maintain. so i think that is particularly the area. we do haveo address the civilian personnel aspects. we talked about civilian hiring constraints, perhaps freezes in some particular areas. because civilian pay is about 40% of our operation and maintain budget. it is at significant piece that we can't ignore going forward.

long-term, we're committed to the long-range strike that you referenced, we're going to try to keep programs like that on track. but every program would be affected if sequestration were to hit. let's go to the back here. >> i wanted to ask about flying hours and if you expect those numbers to go down this year? >> we're going to try to protect readyness related training as far into the year as we possibly can. the curtailments that we're looking at is nonessential flying and we'll let the commappedsers make the individual calls on how best to do that. this is a large expense for the air force, it is a big chunk of operation and maintenance

funding. we're trying to protect the effect on the flying as long as possible. the basic point here, the measures we're taking now -- the pru dent things we can do to mitigate risks the sequestration hits and the multibillion dollar reductions fall in the last two quarters of the fiscal year, there is no way not to impact training, flying hours and maintenance. those things right now we're trying to protect as long as we can. >> question. secretary carter talks about the possibility of canceling third and fourth quarter maintenance activities. i want to know how specifically will this affect the air force?

and also, general welch what happened to your arm? >> on the first part of that, as i mention we're trying to take prudent actions now that are recoverable as possible. we're trying to protect maintenance for aircrafts as long as we can into the fiscal year. we will have to look at what the third and fourth quarter execution will look like as we go week by week into assessing how many inductions of aircraft that we take into our depos and what is expected output is. and what has the most and least impact on readyness. our commands and those who work

in these areas will be assessing by every aircraft type, sort of what the workloads will be and figure out how to minimize the readyness. if these cuts fall on the third and fourth quarter, there is no question there will be impacts. >> secretary donley is not a as nice of guy as he appears in public. my wife and i went wake boarding with our oldest son and grand kids. i have never tried wake boarding but she jumped on one and was incredibly good which of course meant i had to be better. as being the guy it was important to show her up but 10 face plants later, i can see

that my wife is better than me in everything. i have to get this fixed before sequestration. [laughter] >> given the churn going around the program, does the air force have a path and can you articulate it to us to understand more fully what the sustainment costs will be for the aircraft? and to bring that data into a system and the outcome will decide how many you can afford and when you can bring them in and what the processes will be? >> i know the secretary has an opinion on this. lockheed martin put together a briefing when i was still in my last assignment it talked about the sustainment cost of the program. the number and they referred to it as cost per flying hour. that number was not the same number i've seen in the briefings from our air force, it was in a different format.

so when i got into this job i asked our workforce and program office to get with their team and put these numbers side by side and figure out what the differences were between the the number we thought and the number they had. that is one piece of it. can we determine where the reality is and the figures we're using, that process is pretty far down the path. the numbers are going to be a little bit different for the marines and the navy and we're trying to review that too. the second part of that is making sure as we get more and more actual numbers because we're flying the airplane, it is a real airplane. my first trip i got out of the airplane and f-35's came up. it was reel -- it was impress. we're not getting actual data

that we can track and add into this equation. that will get more and more definitive as we fly more and more. it is very important that we get this clear understanding of these numbers. it is critical to us for all kinds of reasons are, for a lies satisfaction and comfort level that the airplane is going to do what it is supposed to do. one quote i took away as an operator when you talk to the guy who is are flying the airplane, they are not impressed easily. the qun quote they give you is they got the airplane right. they are working the other stuff by they got the airplane right. that is a pretty powerful statement to ezz those who fly airplanes. >> there is a lot of work focused on sustainment and support for the f-35 program because it is transitioning into a more robust training

environment. so t air craffle is coming off the line and being sent to other locations so this services are starting to take ownership of this and it is important we get this right. how to control support costs and provide for streamline support on a worldwide basis is on the joint strike fighter program agenda for all of the partners to be working. there is ongoing work on how to do the global logistic support for this. i would also point to the fact that in the context of building this program, the f-35 simulator is the most sophisticated simulator that we have in the fighter world. it provides a great opportunity to look for carefully on how we provide actual flying hours. in some other areas this could

be more challenging if the simulaters have not kept up with modern technologies. in this case, we have a very modern simulator so there is some advantages we will need to take advantage of there. >> can you tell what the costs of flying were? >> i don't have the specific number. i think the folks in the program office and the folks at lockheed martin are getting to the point where they understand what the numbers respect. what we're going to use i don't know yet. >> can you follow-up on where they started? >> sure. >> the one in the back over here. >> let's say you avoid sequestration but everyone agrees that budgets are being cut and the air force budget will be cut. let's say you still have to do the same kind of flying missions. where do you see it after the budget cuts? how is the air force going to

change what you won't be able to do? can you give us ann indication on how things are going to change with budget cuts? >> i think the mission seat of the air force and the things that general welsh referred to the core functions and the calling cards as the chief refers them as. they would stay the same. we're going adopt to do globalized missions and we're going to do command and control and all of these things remain part of the air force's job. the challenge for the air force and not just the air force but other services is capacity. what will the size be of the military? how much will we have? i think those are the issues pressing in on the u.s. military. we all understand the value of the joint capabilities that the

army, navy, air force brings. we need all of these piece parts to bring together the world's finest military capability. the issue is capacity. how much of it will we have? you can see what the air force will look like now in 2020, in terms of new capables coming on board. the tanker will be fielded, the f-35 will be fielded, we'll be well along in the bomber program. we would have developed further in the cyber area. you can see based on our priorities and the dollars that are being invested now when the capabilities will deliver. in terms of new capeabilities coming, you can see what the future air force will look like. the underlying issue is size, the overall capacity of the armed forces.

as i try to articulate earlier this week, i think there are questions about how much smaller the air force can go in some of these areas without impacting the capability that we provide to the joint and coalition team. >> can you provide any updates on nuclear surety reform activities that global strike commander in light of the weapons mishap a few years ago. >> i think we're in a stronger place than we were a few years ago. we put in place a more rigorous inspection process. we put in place much more intensive oversight. we restructured our nuclear enterprise operations under air force global strike command to

help us get through -- to help us get unified management over this capability. we worked very hard with -- through the nuclear weapons center to get very close alignment between operations and sustainment. i think we made considerable progress and our oversight of the nuclear enterprise in the air force. >> a follow up-up, have you made any preparations for deployment reductions in preparation of new start obligations? >> the air force is in the midst of implementing the new start agreement. . respect to preparations, adjusting the size of the bomber force and planning for

adjustments in the i.b.m. force. we're doing the adjustments that goes along with implementation. >> is there any plans to deploy the c.b. 22 to any place in japan? >> yes. >> what specific locations? >> i think i will beg off of that for now but the answer is yes. let me see if i can get you more detailed answer afterwards. >> after all of the fiscal cliff negotiations, there has been a lot of chat on the internet from airman saying they can't plan for the future. a lot of these folks who are good folks are getting out rather than staying. is that a problem you're trying to address? >> retention in the air force

remains very strong. but i did offer some commentary here that the current uncertainty associated with the budget processes here in washington does create anxiety and frustration among certainly the defense leadership and airman as well. they see and understand what is going on in washington. they are very well connected. they are the most educated force we've ever had and they stay connected to what is going on in our air force and what is be going on in washington. they are watching this and reaching -- making their own judgments about the process. it is extremely inefficient and disruptive to have -- to be operating a multibillion dollar enterprise which is the united states air force on a month or

two at a time. this is not a sensible way to approach budget operations and execution. we can do better. >> if i could make a comment, mr. secretary. let me tell you about the people in the air force and that is proud. they are also tired of being deployed and keeping equipment operating without the funding. so that's why we have to go to the smaller force so they don't have to face that frustration. i don't believe that what you describes is a major issue. they are not begging to get out the door. they are still proud of who they are and what they do. but they want to know what is coming. the airman are way more informed than i was in the air force that's for sure. they are asking questions that i did not ask until i wasal general. so we're trying to keep them

enformed. you do that for us, by the way, you help us with that. good and bad news it is important for them to hear. the division, i mentioned i -- it is posted on our website i sent them a note, i send them one once a month, which direction we think we're moving the intend is to keep it going. communication for us, right now is absolutelyessentia. >> we heard an assessment this week that if sequestration or happen, dod would have to furlough the entire civilian force for the maximum amount of time possible.

how does that impact those defects? >> we have to pay attention to the planning that would be necessary if it were required. because of the various personnel rules that are in place, medications to union and all that. -- notifications to unions and all that. we have to pay attention to that, plan for that, just to be prudent in terms of how to approach the third and fourth quarters. if this sequestration false and the last half the a, we cannot avoid these impacts. 40% of our operating accounts is in civilian personnel. these things have to be looked at seriously. they cannot be avoided. >> can you say if there is

anything new on the air lift her group -- lifter group? >> that work continues. i do not anticipate we will change our position from the president's fy13 budget. i do not think we will revisit that. we're focused in this group mostly on sort of what to do about additional aircraft authorized by congress, and we are developing courses of action appropriately to address that. i do not think we're going to revisit the c-27 issue. >> the air force was criticized by several members of congress

that in the last few months for spending $1 billion on a system that was canceled. can you talk about what steps you might be taking now to prevent this kind of problem and the future, with major acquisitions? billions of dollars now, with budget cuts caught it seems like a lot of money wasted. >> there are important lessons learned from ecsc and we're trying to capture and by that point forward. we have other programs related new budget systems and personnel systems that are making some progress and coming along. ecsc, we lost the confidence in the contractor to deliver. it is unfortunate we had to go a few years before doing that, but we expended time, resources,

effort to adjust the program to see if it would be recoverable and to try to set and on a corrective path. that did not work. so we just lost confidence in that program. we think there are lessons learned. we owe the department a plan for the way forward here later this month. we also have correspondence to answer to the senate armed services committee and others on capitol hill as well. >> i will give you a chance to wrap things up. >> can either of you provide more detail on the budget savings you are expecting to fight over the next several days as you start to put out this memo from these quarters. how much do you think you have to fight in savings? where to you think the ball will come from if you need to protect maintenance? will it come from personal savings or not, and have you

started to try and put out any of these notifications to civilian employees about potential furloughs come up layoffs, and how do you say from this? >> the back part of your question, the answer is we are going to put out guidance in the next few days. we're not making notifications with respect to furloughs. that is not on the table at the present time. we do have to consider a hiring freeze or perhaps with some mission-essentials exceptions, but this is what we're working through right now. there will be some impact on our civilian personnel management processes. we are not targeting particular dollar amounts to say, and i come back to this, the secretary addressed this yesterday,

there's nothing we can do in the next two months or the next nine months, the remainder of this fiscal year, to mitigate the impact of sequestration. there are no particular targets. it is simply prudent management steps to start adjusting the way we expend dollars so that we literally do not fall off our own cliff created by this sequestration problem. that is our challenge as managers of the tax payers' resources. there are no specific targets, because they would not mitigate the impact of sequestration, and all they can do is sort of s thea ate slow chairman said, to steel

ourselves to it. [indiscernible] we do have a sense for this, and i think at the macro level it was about 18%, 20% reductions in our o.m. accounts. that is the estimates of all this to take place. in the near term, as we introduce these mitigating strategies over the next month or so to slow spending -- we're not pllooking at particular targets. >> the airmen in the air force are wondering about what our job will be in the future and where they will fit in its. that is their big question. i stressed to them that the job description for the air force was written in 1947 in the

national security act. it has never changed. i do not expect them to change. the space and cyber capabilities, we developed those missions to do better were not developed in 1947, and our focus needs to get better at the way we do these missions. the future is to figure out how to integrate data, information, how to moved quicker, how to connect platforms. that is not as expensive as new weapons systems. it's an offense -- it benefits us in the way we do today. we have people in the air force focusing on that problem right now. that close, the strength of what we do, my job and our focus is to make sure that we enable them to do their job and then we stand back and are amazed at how well they are doing. >> thanks for being here.

>> staking, chief. to reiterate and picked up on the chief's thing, it takes our total forced air men, active guard, to do all this work, and we rely on them to the commission is done every single day. our obligation as leaders is to hand off to our successors and air force that is better than the one that was handed to us, and that is how our air force has gotten better and better decade after decade. our obligation is to keep this air force, the finest air force in the war. we have air meant that will help us get to the challenges ahead, and we face significant should teach it challenges and fiscal challenges at the same time. we have been through lots of ups and downs of the years, and if we support our airmen and the families in this work, active, guard, reserve, civilian, they

will get us through, and i am confident making prudent choices, a typical decisions, between force structure and modernization, these difficult trade-offs going forward, we can still stay the world's finest air force. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> at the white house today, afghan president hamid karzai meeting with president obama. the afghan speaker will speak at georgetown university in about an hour and a half. earlier today, he appeared at a joint news conference with president obama at the white house. you can watch those earlier

remarks on line at the c-span video library, and we'll have live coverage of his remarks at torched hand at about 5:30 p.m. eastern. >> i could read the president's moods like anybody else. he came close to anyone in gaining admittance into what robert shoreward called roosevelt potts heavily forested interior. unlike mrs. roosevelt, he knew when to be still in the presence of the president, went to press him, when to back off and tell me just pick after he won the election, when the willkie was in his office and they remained friends. willkie said to the president, white do you keep that man so close to you, that man being hopkins?

willkie not like hopkins, and rose about said, you may be in this office some day, you will understand, but he asks for nothing except to serve for me. >> harry hopkins lived in the res about white house for 3 1/2 years. sunday at 10:00 p.m. c-span2. >> a look at what voters think about the federal deficit from research from the pew research center, specifically, what trade-offs should be made between reducing the deficit and preserving the entitlements. this is about 40 minutes. host: joining us, michael demoss -- host: joining us, michael dimocka new report looking at voters. but how young voters obverses older voters look at

entitlement. guest: these clearly have different implications for the process. the other generation is skeptical that they ever will be part of the process. host: common philosophy would say, if you are younger, you are not paying attention to it much, but if you are much older, things like social security, it matters more. guest: young people are not paying a lot of attention to these debates. it is not there type priority. it is not something they are thinking about regularly. host: one of the information pieces that came out as far as age influence, when it comes to the idea of social security verses reducing the deficit. for those 18 to 29, reducing the deficit was more important.

could you give some context to those numbers? guest: this is a fascinating charge because it goes the opposite direction of most generational break and come to the world of government and spending. in general, the number generation is much more positive about the role that government can play in society. they supported obama's stimulus earlier on. they see a broader role for government in solving problems, dealing with poverty and other things. when it comes to social security and entitlements, the curve ben's the other direction. part of it is linked to the fact let's seniors, who are often skeptical of government, see

these programs working very well and being very effective. part of it is that young people are less focused and confident that these programs will be there to help out. host: the sustainability of these programs, how does that factor into how you ask these questions? guest: we ask the people in the survey if we keep these programs as they are, how you think we will pay for them down the road? the younger generation is skeptical that we will have them. even in the 30-45 age range as well, they are skeptical. host: our guest is talking about entitlement programs and the like. we have divided the phone lines by age. the numbers are on the screen.

you can send us a tweet or e- mail. clarify which age bracket you fall into if you do that. another chart, instead of me going through the details, what is this jar trying to say and what did you find from it? guest: the government should be helping younger people and older people at the end of the day. if you ask people individually, they want to help both groups. there's a lot of support for helping the young and old. but as a trade-off, the younger folks in think that the government should be more focused on helping people get started in their lives. seniors really do want to

protect the role that government plays in making sure that seniors do not fall through the cracks. host: as they get older, 59% of the respondents say, no, pay more attention to the older adults. guest: and you do not want to get the impression that there is generational warfare behind us. in fact, one of the things that stands out about generation in american politics is that even though there are some very big polite -- divided politically in terms of the role of government and spending, there is not a lot of friction or tension between younger and older americans. they do not see a lot of difficulties or distinctions. i think a big part of that is that we are all parts of families have one level or another. the challenges that seniors face are the challenges that i face or the younger people face

because we have grandparents and grandchildren. at the end of the day, we are not heading in the direction of generational warfare. host: on capitol hill you hear the rhetoric about our children and our children's children. guest: right, and at the end of the day, the question remains of what kind of sacrifices they're ready to make. host: pick the line at best suits you. call with your question or comment. this is jack, a first, massachusetts. he registers himself as under 35. caller: i am 22 years old when i see it on the page account much money is going to social security and medicare, i wish i could opt out.

i have no faith does it will be there when i would want it or use it. other than that, i cannot comprehend how dysfunctional congress is. everybody is arguing about what to cut when everything needs to be cut. host: to your response, the recent expiration of the payroll tax holiday, which would affect every american's jet. -- paycheck. guest: the issue of social security is an interesting one. younger generations are very confident in government programs. they think they run better than older adults do in a variety of ways, whether with respect to the environment or something else. and with regard to social security, when it comes to something the republicans have put forward, the idea of privatizing social security and

allowing people to put money in their accounts, that is a popular idea among the underwriters. -- younger voters. older voters are very skeptical about shifting back. host: here are the numbers. fill in the context. guest: young voters are concerned about what is being taken from their paychecks may not be available when they get there. it is not that they resent their grandparents or their parents, but the concern is that they look forward to their own situation. is it going to be there for them? host: arizona prepared

identifies himself as a 36-55 years old. caller: i know the younger callers there said he would like to opt out of social security. but if he gets a disease and it takes him down, that is what medicare and social security are for. i think our congressmen and senators can find a lot of waste and fraud to cut out instead of cutting social security. guest: that is a common feeling among a lot of people. it is not that younger people, feel the social security and medicare are failing. when we asked people whether they think these programs have been affected, most young and old say they think they have

been -- effective, most young people and older people say they have been. it is when you get to the long term trajectory of the programs that you see real and differences along generational lines about where the programs are headed, about what is going to be available and whether substantial changes need to be made. host: talk about how you put this report together. who did you talk to? guest: we talked to a random sampling of people all across the country. the focus was to try to understand generational dynamics. coming out of the 2012 election to we have seen two election cycles, really, almost 3, where we have seen the largest gaps in voting along age lines that we have seen in a long time. people tend to think that young people always vote democratic. that is not true. as recently as 2000, there was no difference between how people under 30 and how people

over 30 voted between bush and gore. if we are seeing more of a generational difference right now. the purpose of this particular study was to see how that applies to this issue, which is very generational in nature, entitlements. host: we have a link if you want to look for it. or you can go to the pugh, -- pew research center yourself and look at it. there is. carol identifies herself as 56 or older. she is from new jersey. caller: good morning. i understand that according to the news, mr. bernanke, the head of the federal reserve, is currently in the process of monetizing our debt to the tune of $86 billion per month indefinitely.

and he is doing now to buy mortgage securities and treasury bills. do you have any comment on that? guest: there is a lot of divide in american politics over how big of an issue the deficit is. in fact, we have been asking a question for the past four to five years that says, what should be the priority for the government these days, spending to help the economy recover, or reducing the deficit? that is the fundamental debate. the american public is split almost 50-50 throughout this time frame. there are many people who see stimulus as the more immediate priority. there are other people who say we've got to tackle the deficit first. that is what we are seeing happen in washington, d.c. typically, it is the number -- younger generations who are

more supportive of the kind of thing you are describing, that the government needs to do something to get this economy turning. part of that reflects the position of many of these younger people who have been hit harder by this economy that older generations. they're having difficulty getting careers going. the number of people who have moved back in with their families when they were hoping to move in a different direction. we have seen the burden of this economic downturn being felt by younger people. they typically focus on getting the economy going. seniors have not been as effective, partly because the entitlement programs are there to protect them from that. they are emphasizing the deficit more. host: if you did a survey, 56%, and get the benefits should stay as they are. 32 percent said that the budget deficit was a priority.

a% said both. and then there is the gap. guest: the folks that do not know. this is the question that shows a larger generational divide. the younger folks see the deficit as a priority over benefits. host: richmond, virginia. sabrina. let's go to sandra next. go ahead. caller: i think you are asking the wrong questions of young people. i have young children, too. they're kind of selfish and they do not understand what will happen to them when they are 65 years old. they put money into the stock markets and the stock market crashes and then they have no money. who will they look at to support them? the government. i think you should be asking them different questions. guest: i think it is true. young people are trying to

assess policies that will affect them 40 years down the line. part of it is their skepticism about what is in place now still being in place for them. part of it is another attitude that we see among younger folks, and this may be more about age. they are willing to experiment a little bit more. there are open to the idea that these programs have been in place pretty much in their current form for many decades. why not experiment? why not try different things? younger folks, by their very nature, are open to that. host: the caller brought up her children and selfishly, and it prompted me to another truck about generational responsibility.

guest: this is whether it is a responsibility. here we are getting out of the policy realm and more in the family rahm. -- realm. what kinds of responsibilities do we have intergenerational olli? these differ a lot across generational lines. there is not really a sense of generational attention. -- tension. the vast majority of people, young an old, feel that we need to take care of our parents as they get older. i think the people do see the current economic downturn has a special case. a lot of parents understand that their children have had trouble getting a start in their career in these circumstances. you are seeing more families moving in together in these situations. host: nick, 56 and older. good morning.

caller: i would like to ask if it would give us the truth about what they are doing with social security. if anybody wants to call as public idiots and we are stupid and don't know anything, that is because this is the kind of information being given to us. washe 1980's, when reagan president, he said that there was $3 trillion in surplus in social security. and that was too much money to be sitting there. gradually, congress and the whole government started siphoning money off to pay the debt. that is what they have been doing. guest: it gets to a fundamental question about social security, as to whether it is a completely separate program that

is not a part of the federal government, that is not a redistributive in any way, in effect, taking money from us as a society and redirecting it to those most in need. it was not conceived that way. it was conceived as an individual retirement cushion that everybody could tap into. when you get back to the generational issues on this, young folks tend to be a little bit more supportive of the redistribution will notion. really, social security is not necessarily something different from other government program. maybe higher-income people ought to pay a little bit more than lower-income people. maybe low-income people ought to be more eligible to get more out of it. that is the broader world view that we see among younger people that is a little bit more in the alignment with democratic thinking right now. one of the things that we see among seniors is a real desire to make sure that these programs stay in place. i do not think that is purely

selfish. it is not just trying to protect what they already have, but that they are the folks who recognize the most how beneficial these programs have been as a safety net and they want to make sure that is passed on to their children and grandchildren. host: generationally, the philosophy expressed in these reports, you find out among the members of congress? guest: membership is tilted so to the older generation, not sure how much that is distributed. unfortunately, this debate has so far into partisan tracks, republican vs. democrat. you see some of that partisanship on social security and medicare on a public level, but it is not one of the most

divisive issues at the public level. there is room for compromise and middle ground on a lot of the issues related to this. should we be instituting some kind of means testing in terms of what is eligible? should people be paying more into the system than they currently are? those are things where you can find some level of partisan consensus. at the public level, i think washington may be more challenging. host: charles is under 35 and is joining us from new york. caller: good morning. you are extremely knowledgeable and i appreciate it. i feel that people my age are so optimistic about the future, but there is no money. and the government keeps printing money and inflation increases and the money that is actually there decreases. for someone like myself who is self-employed, who has his own

business, if i do not put enough money away, when i get old there will not be enough money there. host: here is a fact what that says three out of four americans have less than $30,000 in adequate retirement savings. guest: what you're expressing is something we hear a lot from you and your folks, which is this combination of optimism -- and in some ways an interesting combination. young girl folks have felt the bigger burden of the younger folks have felt a bigger burden of the downturn, but also have more optimism. there is a lot of concern about whether the government is going to have adequate funding to follow through on commitments they've made, not only in terms of entitlements, but other commitments they've made. one thing we have seen that the

deficit as a priority tends to be a higher priority for older folks, who see that as something we need to tackle immediately. younger folks tend to want to see us turn the economy around first. host: this is terry. go ahead. caller: number one, i'm upset of the term entitlement. it is a savings program. i have to pay my bills. if they take it out too soon, have them paid back with interest.

host: who pay it back? caller: when social security was raided by congress and they took money out, how the data back with interest. guest: i do not know the answer to that, actually. host: dwane in minnesota, 56 or older. caller: i am 71. i lost money in the stock market. all i've got is social security. i've been paying into that since i was 13. why doesn't the government have it in a separate fund so you can leave it alone and not far from it? host: you have heard discussions on capitol hill about changing how entitlement programs are maintained and operated. what goes through your mind? caller: i do not think they should touch it.

it is separate. guest: and one of the younger callers earlier said he does not feel depth he will get -- feel that he will get back from a system what he has been putting into it. it does not mean that he wants his parents or grandparents to be cut off, but there is a line of thinking were the regeneration is a little more open to rethinking these programs. guest: there are a lot of younger people who just do not

think -- unless we make some changes to the system, it will not have long-term stability. and that is reflected in the callers today who are older as well. they're worried about the long- term 10 ability not just from their own perspectives, but because they want a program. host: but they are the only ones showing optimism in this case. guest: as this debate goes forward, thinking about what reforms are really possible is something that i think americans are ready to engage in. as one caller said, we are not stupid on this issue. and in some ways, people know more about entitlements than many government policies. we see it in our paychecks. people really do have a context in which to understand this debate as it moves forward.

host: we are taking a look at how the generation gap looks at issues of the budget and spending. we have a few minutes left in this segment if you want to call in or get a comment on twitter. nathan from st. louis, missouri, under 35. caller: i am a 20-year-old college student and myself and many of my friends feel that we need to cut the vast amounts of military spending, like the spending in 2011 that the post reported on. host: nathan, what you think about retirement programs and welfare programs? how do you and your friends you what should be done about them? caller: i believe, and me and my friends have talked about

the small arguments like that will not make a difference if the federal reserve is printing so much money and so much corruption is going on in many of these corporations. and the consequences are not been brought out to people. guest: there are big pots of money that probably need to be part of the discussion, whether social security, defense spending, or other programs. you see different generational dynamics when it comes to those areas. younger people tend to be more favorable toward cutting defense spending. a little bit more in favor of making adjustments to social security or medicare.

many of those programs are designed to help those who are struggling. this is a generation that tends to prioritize those kinds of things. and also, people who need to get ahead and need that kind of assistance. many who need help getting their careers started want to see a government continue to play a role. host: just to show you the numbers of voters that say government should do more to solve problems, those in the 18- 29 group say they should be doing more.

guest: this is one of the interesting fact that comes out of this election cycle. and we are in a time of pretty deep anti-government sentiment. we heard in a lot of calls today. there's a lot of skepticism about how government is functioning. the under 30 group is the only world right now but still sees as a priority the government doing more to help people, not less. that reflects their position in life. and the ideological environment in which they came of age. generations often take on a character framed by the environment in which they came of age politically. who was president when they turned 18? that is the easiest cut point to think about that. and you see the boomers have a characteristic. and the older, silent generation that came of age post-world war ii and pre-60's. and you sit generation where

reagan was president when they came of age. the younger voters today came of age in the bush presidency and the obama presidency. those were the defining political moments of their political awakening. many of them were too young to resonate with 9/11. daud was not the defining moment in their life. it is what happened after, the war in iraq, hurricane katrina. these are people who have seen government not having done enough in a lot of situations, or have missed -- having misdirected its priorities. we see more of a desire for government to take action. caller: i am 55.

when i was younger, i did not worry about social security. i wonder how you take surveys. use land lines. i remember when bush started talking about people opting out and that is when the stock market crash. guest: there are a lot of differences to the idea of opting out of social security. but folks 50 and over place a higher priority on protecting social security and medicare. they recognize the role it plays in their lives in a different way than younger people.

and for them, it is kind of a a an abstraction. their view may change as they get older, i grant you that. host: 56 years and older, lee roy, go ahead. caller: my point is, we have been through this thing twice before. it used to be 62 when you were eligible for sources security. and then the republicans attacked social security. then the age when a to 65. now we got it up to 67. why are we letting this group of people attack these people that cannot do better for themselves, the people that are

on social security and the people on medicare? guest: raising the retirement age, or the eligibility age for medicare, either of those programs, that is certainly being discussed here in washington. it is an issue that cuts the other direction generationally. the older generations want to preserve and not change medicare. raising the retirement age is one exception. people who are already over the age of 67, they are willing to see their retirement age go up as a way to make it available. it is the folks who are between 60-65 who are the most opposed. there is a certain amount of personal perspective that people bring to this, shaped by what their expectations. that is one of the reasons this is such a difficult issue to make major changes to because it is so integrated into our lives.

host: clear from pennsylvania, under 35. caller: what does our government plan to do when the money just simply runs out and there's nothing left? what a social security going to do for the people then? guest: that may be a debate that we will ultimately have to have. you can continue to think of social security as a separate pot of money that needs to be self sustaining and not part of the broader government budget, or you can think of it as part of the government budget and we need to continue to provide these benefits for people pay into the system, even if that means drawing out of our

general tax base. i think that is a ways off. most projections suggest that we have another -- you can count it different ways, but at least another decade or two before we cross the boundary. the debate now washington is over how to extend that deadline a little further. host: this next caller is steve in missouri. caller: the slide that showed just a moment ago represents the state of our country. if you really look at it, we are losing the group that was the most self-reliant in this country. and the other folks are becoming more and more dependent upon government. the other comment i would like to make is that if we would change the programs so that politicians actually had to rely on these programs as well as the rest of the country, maybe there would be some motivation to change the programs.

guest: that is an interesting point. the silent generation, has some of them call them, those folks who are pre-baby boom, but post-greatest generation. a lot of them came of age in the truman and eisenhower years. it is a generation that has been a bit more skeptical of government all along. they have never been terribly supportive of the government is expanding and taking on a bigger role. not so much as the generation that preceded them, who came out of the new deal era and world war ii and sought a much more powerful role for government in our society, as well as the baby boom generation coming of age in the 1960's and wanting to tackle issues, whether it was the quality or other realms where the government needed to take more action. this is a generation that has

always been a little more skeptical of government expansion. they are still a major part of our electorate. by demographic terms, these are 67 to about 84. but every year that passes, you are seeing younger generation is coming in and making a bigger share of the electorate who have different views about the role of government and what it should be doing. host: harmon on our line for 56 years and older. caller: i am 81. in dealing with the question of how older folks in the with the budget, i'm looking at loans from china and other countries

to the united states to fight these wars. if you don't raise the debt ceiling and you don't make your payments to china, what happens? guest: one thing that unifies all ages right now was the frustration with the brinksmanship, let's say, of modern american politics we have been through a cycle of about two or three years where every major policy decision has to come to a crisis before anything is done. and then when it is done, the feeling is that it is kind of kicked down a road, whether it is the debt ceiling issue in the summer of 2011 or now the fiscal clift a crisis of last month, government shutdowns. we are seeing more and more partisan entrenchment, and therefore, last-minute deals that do not seem to solve problems. that is a frustration that

everybody shares. in the sense that we are dancing very close to the edge of allowing drastic about things to happen because of that. there's a frustration that spans all generations. host: to find out more about the survey from the pure research center, they have it on line. we have included a link to it. thanks for your time. >> in about 40 minutes, afghan president ahmed karzai will speak at georgetown university. you can watch these comments at about 5:30 p.m. eastern on c- span. now we will show you the press conference. the two leaders discussed the progress of the war and the planned withdrawal of troops from afghanistan next year. this is about 40 minutes.

[indiscernible] >> good afternoon, everybody. >> it is my pleasure to welcome president karzai back to the white house as well as his delegation. we last saw each other during the nato summit in chicago, a city that reflects the friendship between our peoples, including many afghan-americans and the karzai family. mr. president, welcome. we meet at a critical moment. the 33,000 additional forces i ordered to afghanistan have served with honor, they have completed their mission, and returned home this past fall. the transition is well underway, and soon nearly 90% of

afghans will live in areas where afghan forces are in the lead for their own security. this year will mark another milestone. afghan forces will take the lead for security across the entire country, and by the end of next year, 2014, the transition will be complete. afghans will have full responsibility for their security, and this war will come to a responsible end. this progress is possible because of the incredible sacrifices of our troops and our diplomats, the forces of our many coalition partners, and the afghan people, who have endured. in this war, more than 2,000 american sons and daughters have had their lives ended, whom we honor forever, and as we announce today, in the next

month i will present our nation paused highest military decoration, the medal of honor, to a staff sergeant for his service in afghanistan. today, president karzai and i have been able to review our shared strategy. with the devastating blows we have struck against al qaeda, the reason we went to war in the first place is now within reach -- insuring al qaeda can never use afghanistan to launch attacks against our country. at the same time, we pushed the taliban out of their strongholds. today, most major cities and most afghans are more secure and territory. afghan forces continue to grow stronger, meanwhile. as planned, some 352,000 afghan soldiers and police are now in

training or on duty. most missions are already being led by afghan forces. of all the men and women in uniform in afghanistan, the vast majority are afghans who are fighting and dying for their country every day. we still face significant challenges, but because this progress our transition is on track. last year we agreed with partners that afghan forces will take the lead for security in mid 2013. president karzai and his team have been here for several days, we have consulted with our coalition partners, and we will continue to do so, and today we agreed that as afghan forces take the lead and as president karzai announces the final phase of the transition, coalition forces will move to a support role this spring. our troops will continue to fight alongside afghans when needed, but let me say it as

plainly as i can -- starting this spring, our troops will have a different mission, training, advising, assisting afghan forces. it will be an historic moment, and another step toward full afghan sovereignty, something i know that president karzai cares deeply about, as do the afghan people. this sets the stage for the further reduction of coalition forces, and we have already reduced our presence to roughly 66,000 u.s. troops, and we will continue to bring our forces home at a steady pace, and in the coming months i will announce the next phase of our draw-down. president karzai has discussed the nature of our security cooperation after 2014. our team continues to work for an agreement, and they will be guided by our respect for afghan sovereignty and by our tenets which will be specific

and narrow. first, training and assisting afghan forces, and, second, targeted counter-terrorism missions against al qaeda. it is hoped we will reach an agreement this year. security gains must be matched by political progress, so we have recommitted to a process between the afghan government and the taliban. president karzai has updated me on the afghan government's commitment to peace, and we agree this process should be -- reconciliation requires constructive support from across the region, including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken, and look for more tangible steps, because a stable at future afghanistan is

in the interest of not only the afghans and the united states but of the entire region. we reaffirmed the strategic partnership that we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties in trade talks, commerce, , education, and opportunities for all afghans, men and women, boys and girls. this sends a clear message to afghans into the region as stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. let me close by saying this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and the tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. growing stronger.

insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governments at the ballot that delivers for the afghan people an end to safe havens for al qaeda. this will continue to get our work. make no mistake, our path is clear and we're moving forward. every day, more afghans are stepping up and taking a possibility, and as they do, our troops will come home. next year, this long war will come to responsible end. president karzai, i thank you and your delegation for the progress we have made together and for your commitment to the goals that we share. a strong and sovereign afghanistan, where afghans find security, peace, prosperity, and dignity, and in pursuit of that but future, afghanistan will have a long-term partner in the united states of america. mr. president? >> thank you very much, mr. president, for your warm welcome and for appearing with

us during our talks in the blair house. the president and i discussed today in great detail all the relevant issues between the two countries. i was happy to see that we have made progress on some of the important issues for afghanistan. concerning afghan sovereignty, we agreed on the complete return of detention centers and detainees to afghan sovereignty and that this will be implemented soon enough on my return to afghanistan.

we also discussed all aspects of transition to afghan government and security. i am very happy to hear from the president as we also discussed it earlier that in the spring this year the afghan forces will be fully responsible for providing security and protection to the afghan people and that the international forces will be no longer president in afghan villages, that the task will be that of the afghan forces to provide for the afghan people in security and protection. that we also agreed on the steps that you should be taking in the peace process, which is giving sovereignty to afghanistan.

we agreed on allowing the taliban have an office, where the taliban will engage in direct talks with the representatives of the afghan high council for peace, where we will be seeking that help of relevant reasonable countries, including pakistan, where we will try our best together with the other allies to return peace and stability to afghanistan as soon as possible and employee in all the means that are within our power to do that, so that the afghan people can live in security, peace, and work for the prosperity and education of their children. the president and i also discussed the economic transition of afghanistan and all that entails for afghanistan.

once the transition to afghan forces is completed, once the bulk of the international forces are withdrawn from afghanistan, we hope the dividends of that transition will be beneficial to the afghan people and will not have adverse effects on afghan economy and the prosperity that we have obtained. we also discussed the issue of the election in afghanistan and the importance of election for the afghan people, with the hope that we will be conducting a free and fair election in afghanistan where our friends in the international community and the united states will be assisting in conducting those elections. of course, where afghanistan will have the right environment for conducting elections without interference and without undue

concern. we also discussed in a bit of detail and in the environment that we have all aspects of the bilateral security agreement between afghanistan and the united states, and i informed the president that the afghan people already have given their approval to this relationship and value it as one that is good for afghanistan. in that context, the bilateral security agreement is one that the afghan people approve, and i am sure we will conduct it in detail where both the interests of the united states and the interests of afghanistan will be kept in mind.

we had a number of other issues also to talk about during our conversations, and perhaps many times in that conversation, beginning with the composition of, of course. i thanked the president for the help that the united states has given to the afghan people for all that we have gained in the past 10 years and that those gains will be kept by any standard while we're working for peace and stability in afghanistan, including concern for the afghan constitution. i also thanked the president for the sacrifices of the men and women and those of other countries. i also informed president obama of the sacrifices of the afghan people, the immense sacrifices of the afghan people in the last

10 years, both servicemen and the afghan people. i am going back to afghanistan this evening to bring to the afghan people the news of afghanistan standing shoulder to shoulder with america as a sovereign, independent country, but in cooperation and in partnership. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you very much. we have got two questions each from u.s. and afghan press, and we will start with scott wilson of "the washington post." >> mr. president, moving the deadline to the spring, it does that mean you will be winding down u.s. troops faster than you expected this year, and

specifically, how many troops do you expect to leave in afghanistan beyond 2014 for the missions? and would you consider leaving any trips beyond that date without an immediate agreement for their actions? president karzai, you have spoken about the american presence poses as a threat to afghanistan sovereignty. how many u.s. troops you would accept after that time? thank you. >> scott, our first task has been to meet the transition plan that we set first in lisbon, then in chicago. and because of the progress that has been made by our troops, because of the progress that has been made in terms of afghan security forces, their capacity

to take the lead, we are able to meet those goals accelerate them somewhat. so let me repeat. what is going to happen this spring is that afghans will be in the lead throughout the country. that is the mean that coalition forces, including u.s. forces, are no longer fighting. they will still be fighting alongside afghan troops. it does mean, though, that afghans will have taken the lead and our presence, the nature of our work, will be different. we will be in a training, assisting, and advising mode. we will still have troops there, and that means that our men and women will still be in harm's way, that there will still be the need for enforced protection, the environment will still be very dangerous, but what we have seen is that afghan

soldiers are stepping up at great risk to themselves, and that allows us than to make this transition during the spring. what that translates into precisely in terms of how this drawdown proceeds is something that is not yet fully determined. i am going to be over the coming weeks getting recommendations from general allen and other commanders. they will design a responsible plan to make sure that we are not losing the gains that had already been made, that we're in a position to support the afghan units when they are in theater, and to make sure that our folks are also protected, even as we are drawing down. i cannot give you a precise number at this point. i will be making a separate announcement once i have got

recommendations from the generals and our commanders in terms of what that drawdown might look like. with respect to post-2014, we have two goals, and the main conversation today was establishing a meeting of the minds in terms of what those goals would be with a follow-on presence of u.s. troops. number one, to train, assist, and advise afghan forces so they can maintain their own security, and, number two, making sure that we can continue to go after remnants of al qaeda or other affiliates that might threaten our homeland. that is a very limited mission, and it is not one that will require the same kind of footprint that we have had over the last 10 years in afghanistan.

similar to the issue of drawdown, i am still getting recommendations from the pentagon and our commanders on the ground in terms of what that would look like. and when we have more information about that, i will be describing that to the american people. i think president karzai's primary concern, and you will hear directly from him, is making sure afghan sovereignty is respected. and if we have a follow-on force of any sort past 2014, it has to be at the invitation of the afghan government, and they have to feel comfortable with it. i will say, as i have said to president karzai, that we have agreements with countries like this all around the world, and nowhere do we have any kind of security agreement with a country without immunity for our troops.

that is how i as commander in chief can make sure that our folks are protected in carrying out very difficult missions. i think president karzai understands that. i do not want to get ahead of research in terms of the negotiations that are still remaining on the bilateral security agreement, but from my perspective, it will not be possible for us to have any kind of u.s. troop presence post-2014 without assurances that our men and women who are operating there in some way subject to the jurisdiction of another country. >> well, sir, the bilateral security agreement is in mind for the interests of both countries. the issue of the immunity is of very specific importance to the

united states we understand, as was for us the issue of sovereignty and the tensions and the continued presence of international forces in afghan villages and the conduct of the war itself. with those issues resolved, as we did today, the rest was done earlier, i can go to the afghan people and argue for immunity for u.s. troops in afghanistan in a way that afghan sovereignty will not be compromised, in a way that afghan law will not be compromised, in a way that the provisions that we arrived at through our talks will give the united states the satisfaction of what it seeks, and will also provide the afghan people the

benefit that they are seeking through this partnership and the subsequent agreement. that is not for us to decide. it is an issue for the united states. numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in afghanistan. it is the broader relationship that will make a difference to afghanistan and beyond in the region. the specifics of numbers are issues that the military will decide and afghanistan will have no particular concern and we are talking of numbers and how they are deployed. >> i direct my question in my own language.

mr. president, the mission of the united states, after 2014 -- how this mission will be, will it be resembling the same mission as it was during 11 years, or instead, a different kind of mission? and pakistan in particular, the safe havens that are in pakistan, what kind of policy will you have? thank you. >> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason, should we have troops in afghanistan post-2014, at the invitation of the afghan government, will be to make sure that we are training, assisting,

and advising afghan security forces who have taken the lead and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan, and the interest the united states has, the reason we went into first place, is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghanistan. we believe we can achieve that mission in a way that is very different from the very active presence that we have had in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presence in afghan villages, for example, has created. that will not be a strain if there is a follow-up operation

because that will not be our responsibility. that will be the responsibility of the afghan national security forces to maintain peace, order, and stability in afghan villages, in afghan territory. so i think, although obviously we are still two years away, i can say with assurance that this is a very different mission and very different task and a very different footprint for the u.s. if we are able to come to an appropriate agreement. with respect to pakistan and safe havens of there, afghanistan and the united states and pakistan all have an interest in reducing the threat of extremism in some of these border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. that will require more than simply military actions.

that is really going to require political and diplomatic work between afghanistan and pakistan, and the united states obviously will have an interest in facilitating and participating in cooperation between the two sovereign countries. as president karzai has indicated, it is very hard to imagine a stability and peace in the region if pakistan and afghanistan do not come to some basic agreement and understanding about the threat of extremism to both countries and both governments in the capitals, and you are starting to see a greater awareness of that on the part of the pakistani government. >> the question that you have made about -- we talked about

this issue in detail today, about the presence, the detention centers. all of these will refer to the afghan sovereignty, where the u.s. forces will pull out from villages, will go to their bases, and afghan sovereignty will be restored, after 2014. we're working on these relations. these relations will have a different nature and will be working on different principles. it will resemble turkey or germany. we are studying these relationships, and we will do

that. >> thank you, mr. president. as you contemplate the end of this war, can you say something as commander in chief of the huge human, financial costs that this is, if it can be justified, that the world left behind will be somewhat diminished than at the beginning of the war? president karzai, many independent studies have criticized afghanistan for corruption and poor governance. do you stand by your assertion that much of this is due to influence of foreigners? will you stand down for elections next year? >> i want us to remember why we went to afghanistan.

we went into afghanistan because 3,000 americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling afghanistan. it was absolutely the right thing for us to go after that organization, to go after the host government that had aided and abetted or at least allowed for these attacks to take place, and because of the work of our men and women in uniform and because of the corporation and the sacrifices of afghans who had also been brutalized by the then host government, we achieved our central goal, which is -- or have come very close to achieving the central goal --

which was to decapitate al qaeda. everything we have done over the last 10 years, from the perspective of the u.s. national security interests, have been focused on that goal. and at the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the goal that we sought. now, when we also recognize the very early on was that it was in our national security interest to have a stable, sovereign afghanistan that was a responsible international actor, that was in partnership with us, and that that required afghanistan to have its own

security capacity and to be on a path that was more likely to achieve prosperity and peace for its own people. and i think president karzai would be the first to acknowledge afghanistan still has work to do to accomplish those goals, but there is no doubt that the possibility of peace and prosperity in afghanistan today is higher than before we went in. and that is also in part because of the sacrifices that the american people have made during this long conflict. do i think have we achieved everything that some might have wanted us achieving in some areas? probably not.

this is a human enterprise. did we achieve our central goal, and have we been able to shape a strong relationship with a responsible afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against united states? we have achieved that goal, we are in the process of achieving that goal, and for that we have to take our turn very military, diplomatic and intelligence teams as well as the cooperation of the afghan government and the afghan people. >> on the question of corruption, whether it has a foreign element to it, in answer to your question, there is

corruption in afghanistan, there is corruption in the afghan government that we are fighting against through various means and methods. we have succeeded in certain ways, but if your question is whether we are satisfied, of course not. and on the corruption that is foreign in the origin, but occurring in afghanistan, i have been very clear and explicit, and i do not think that afghanistan can see this corruption unless there is cooperation between us and foreign international partners on correcting some of the methods or applications, delivery of assistance to afghanistan, without cooperation, and without

recognition of the problems. on elections, for me, the greatest of my achievements eventually as seen by the afghan people will be a proper, reorganized, interference-free election in which the afghan people can elect their next president. certainly, i would be a very tired president and a very happily retired president. >> my questions to you, mr. president, afghan women fear that they would be the victim of the process in afghanistan. what assurances can you give

them that they will not suffer because of that process? thank you. >> the united states has been very clear that any peace process, any reconciliation process must be afghan led. it is not for the afghan press or the united states to determine what this peace will be, but what we have also been clear about is that from our perspective it is not possible to reconcile without the taliban renouncing terrorism, without them recognizing the afghan constitution, and recognizing that if there are changes they want to make to how the afghan

government operates, then there is an orderly constitutional process to do that, and that you cannot resort to violence. the afghan constitution protects the rights of afghan women. and the united states strongly believes that afghanistan cannot succeed unless it gives opportunity to its women. we believe that about every country in the world. we will continue to voice very strongly support for the afghan constitution's protection for minorities, its protection of women, and we think that a failure to provide that protection not only will make reconciliation impossible to achieve, but also would make afghanistan's longterm

development impossible to achieve. the single best indicator or one of the single best indicators of a country's prosperity around the world is how does it treat its women. does it educate that half of the population? does it give them opportunity? when it does, you will unleash the power of everyone, not just some, and there was great wisdom in afghanistan ratifying a constitution that recognizes that appeared that should be part of the legacy of these last 10 years. thank you very much, everybody. >> we're going to show