>> we have a twitter message from the twitter account. it's at the question is how threatened is the jordanian monarchy by a spillover by syria? >> that's the thing i heard the ost when i talk to israeli sources about the situation. a sunni jihad gets stronger and stronger

>> protecting the military and protecting them. we need to encourage good relations between jordan and egypt. and jordan and saudi arabia. we need to let them know that we are dependable. what i said before it is very true. people rely on the united states. aople have to know we are dependable ally. it is good policy for us to be a dependable ally.

it is also good policy for us in terms of what we need. al qaeda was planning. and putting. we were not going after them. when the soviet union russians were thrown at afghanistan, we sort of pact that the one home. we allow that country to fester instead of making sure that the taliban did not rear its ugly head. we cannot afford to do that anymore. feel thatt people they are tired. they are all tied. we have responsibilities as the leading power and as a responsibility to ourselves. it is one of those moments in our life in everybody's life. we have to be vigilant.

we need to work to make sure that the people who would do us harm prevented from doing it and that the people like jordan, work with, that we them so it is a two-way street. it protects them and keeps them working with us and also protects us. if 100 billion people showed up in the u.s. in the next three or four months. it would be a devastating problem for us to keep up with. that is basically what is happening in jordan and the camps along the border. it is all they can do to keep up with water and sanitary issues. they have built a camp in literally the middle of nowhere the whole 10,000 people. they're trying to create a small town on the border. it is filled up in four days. you have small towns along the border that have more than

doubled the population. they have an interesting -- if you have relatives across the border, you can come in and go and live in that community. they have doubled the size of the small towns in a very short andr that have water issues. it is a real problem. serious -- syrian s are understanding that there are flames to be fanned by penetrating these cans and causing trouble. we see lots of trouble brewing in these cans. camps. -- in these you can trace these back. a country thatnt has little resources to offer its own people, let alone those who are not citizens of jordan. we have to step up and help them . we need the international community to do more they are doing. one of the things we can do is the refugeetain

flow by trying to offer some areas of stability in syria that allows people to find a safe haven of their own. it is populated with the young girls and kids were the parents are telling them to flee. it is a tragic event to walk through these camps and meet these young folks who have been displaced i pretty awful conflict fighting in syria. all of those things have to -- happen at the same time. we do not talk about syria much anymore. after the kerfuffle of those should be do a surgical strike on their ability to deliver chemical weapons are not, we have moved on. that is a tragedy that we do not put more effort on trying to solve his problems. let me ask or wonder quick response from congressman rogers. this is an important question -- let me ask one more quick

response from congressman rogers. this is an important question. dow confident are you that assa will give "immediate and to allred access" chemical weapons sites and any transfer in and out of syria as he is required to do by article three of the chemical weapons convention. >what is your confidence level? confidence level is high. we will do the best they can. my confidence level is low that we will have access to all the sites we need. a one time, they were talking as many as 42 sites. about 14.een to in the time to have been there,

they have found equipment used to manufacture, but we have tons of this stuff left. i think we are fooling ourselves -- ifthink that they have there isn't a black set of books on the chemical weapons row graham. -- program. clearly there is. they're going to try -- >> never make a bet you cannot keep. i do worry that we think it is done and neat and clean and we have got a clean solution. this is not something we should walk away from delicately. we need to continue that intelligence gathering. we are seeing disturbing reports about moving some of the excess in certain places that would benefit the regime. all of those things are happening at the same time.

i have low confidence that we will get it all. am i glad we're getting our hands on some of the equipment? you bet. that is a good outcome. we should not close the book and think we have done everything we need to do on chemical weapons. say as moderator, any day you get a sensible and bipartisan discussion about a is aoreign-policy issue good day. thank you to congressman rogers and congressman engel for an excellent discussion. them. join me in thanking [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] in a few moments, the head of the white house council of economic advisers and how the government shutdown is affecting the unemployment rate.

in about 15 minutes, pakistan prime minister on u.s.-pakistan relations. after that, a forum on the future of afghanistan. several live events to tell you about coming up tomorrow. commerce ofergy and committee holds a hearing on wired communication networks affect consumers and businesses. that is on c-span 2 at 10:30 a.m. eastern. also at 2 p.m. eastern, a hearing on young people in foster care who become involved in sex trafficking. witnesses include several members of congress who have introduced sex trafficking legislation. and c-span 3, the american enterprise institute holds a form on whether the new health- care care exchanges promote competition among insurers. that is at noon eastern. hours after the japanese

attack on pearl harbor and before her husband had just the eleanorhelen are -- roosevelt was talking to america. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm speaking about their serious moment in our history. the cabin is convening and the leaders are meeting with the president. the state department and all of the officials are meeting with the president. in fact, the japanese ambassador was talking to the president at the very time that japan's airships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines and sinking one of our transports on its way to hawaii. by tomorrow morning, the members of congress will have a full force to be ready for action. in the meantime, we, the people, are prepared for action. for months, the knowledge that something of this kind might happen has been hanging over our heads. yet it seemed impossible to

believe, to drop the everyday things of lives and feel there was only one thing that was meet in the enemy no matter where he struck. that is over now. there is no more uncertainty. we know what we have to face. we know that we are ready to face it. >> watch our program on eleanor roosevelt at our sea -- c- span.org/firstladies. >> the head of the white house council of economic advisers told reporters today that the effects of the government shutdown will show up in the october jobs report. the administration is not satisfied with a slight drop in september's unemployment rate. this is a little more than 10 minutes.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here today. to forgo to the regular briefing, i have with me jason, -- thesident chairman chairman of the president's council of economic advisers. many of you know him. because the shed down -- jobs stay. -- because of the shutdown -- jobs day. he will give you quantitative look at the economic effects of the shutdown that this country experienced and how those effects were negative for the economy and the american people. i will turn this over to jason. remarks at theu top. he is here to take your questions about his analysis and other job and economic issues.

i will return to the podium to take your questions. jay.ank you, this morning we found out that the economy ended with 148,000 jobs in september. the unemployment rate dropped down to 7.3%. there is no question that that pace of job creation is below where we can be satisfied with it. what we did in october was the self-inflicted wound that will subtract from jobs when we learned the jobs number four october. normally congress led jobs day because it is the fresh look of what is going on. just -- this jobs day was delayed several weeks. as a result, it covers data from september that was before the

significant changes that happened in october. one thing we have been trying to get a handle on is what the economic consequences of that economic shutdown and debt limit brings.ship the first slide gives you a number of private sector estimates of the consequences. they show the gdp growth in the fourth quarter. it was reduced from anywhere from 2/10 to 6/10. estimates are useful and informative. it is important that they are based on predictions. they say if government services cease for this amount of time or this amount of money, we have some tebow multiplier or model. here is a consequence for gdp -- orhave some multiplier model. here is the consequence for gdp. getting permits and small businesses not getting loans and homeowners not able to get mortgages. actual data onat

the economy. show some of the data we look at. these are indicators that are available on a daily or weekly asis. the most recent set is available -- weekly basis. the most recent set is available. these eight indicators all tell a very consistent story. -- these indicators all tell a very consistent story. cut back on their spending because of their uncertainty. a gallup index load. -- slowed. steel production fell. slowed aspplication well. some of that is the direct effect of the shutdown. we take all of these different

indicators, each one of them is individually noisy and tells you only part of the picture, and a consistent come economic signal from all of these indicators. we wanted to make sure we got that word in. you can see that in this next chart. the blue line is an index that combines all eight of these variables into a consistent measure of the economy. and jobs job growth disruption. it is a reasonably active measure of the economy. i fell sharply in the first three days of october. others were not as quite sharp falls.

if you calibrate that fall, it is circled there at the end. points.centage i want to stress that is based on the data we have through october 12. as we look through more of october, numbers change and could potentially get worse. this underscores how unnecessary and harmful the shutdown and the brakes and ship was for the was for--brinksmanship the economy. later today, we will have a report out that provides the mathematical of all of this to those of you who i know will be turning straight to the appendix of that report. it is a clear story. had the sector forecast in the actual data -- private sector

forecast in the actual data. questions? >> will this trend continue? we still have the threat of a shutdown. >> i hope it doesn't. there's no reason that it should. we are going through regular order with the conference committee on the budget. they are trying to figure these things out. there are opportunities when it comes to upfront investment and job creation and replacing the recs -- the sequester and a balanced way. jason, even if there isn't another shutdown, how concerned is the white house of the accumulative affect of a weak september jobs report? to slowed economic growth throughout the year? -- could it lead to slowed

economic growth throughout the year? >> we have had things like that euro crisis, the sequester, the brinksmanship. we continued to see the private sector add jobs. we'd like to see them add more jobs. we will do what we can to help. i think in september, you saw job creation. planet rateon a come down. that is consistent with roughly 2 trillion jobs a year. i do not want to overstate any of those worries. we want to push this in the right direction. april? >> what does this do?

is there a ripple effect? >> i do not want anyone to overstate what you see here. rowthoff the grove -- g rate. there's no question that shut down and that brinkmanship associated with the debt limit is moving us in the wrong direction. but this is not the type of catastrophe affect happy actually -- had we actually hit .he get -- debt limit we did not go all the way to the end. it is moving in the wrong direction. i do not want you to lose that the picture trend. the unemployment rate has come down steadily. we just cannot be satisfied with where it is. we want to do more to move in the right direction. >> tell me about the global

impact. >> certainly we have heard from the head of the imf on the christine lagarde. -- we have heard from the head of the imf, christine lagarde. we are still a leader in the world economy. we still have among the strongest growth rate. force inll a key driving economic growth. again, we do not want to do anything to imperil that are change that. that is why the president is out there and urging that we do not repeat anything like the shutdown or brings and ship. anship.rinksm impact ike with the websites helpcare.gov -- do impact like the

healthcare.gov? i think the things that matter the most in the affordable care act for the that it helps businesses and helps job creation and wages. you do not have people locked into a business because they need to keep their insurance. people murphree to move from jobs to job -- it helps people to move from job to job. you also see more affordable and new options for small businesses. taken as a whole, you will see the affordable care act being good for the job market and good for the economy. healtot think anything of hcare.gov changes that story. >> thank you.

you try spansion sequestration theou twice mentioned sequester and the recent government shutdown. theave hard evidence that cuts from sequestration are a negative effect on the recent job situation that you described? is it causing to diminish job creation in the private sector? estimate comes from the congressional budget office. they said the sequester would cost us 750,000 jobs over the course of a year. that is about 60,000 fewer jobs per month. think of how it different this month's jobs report would have been if he had extra 60,000 jobs. testifying --ad private sector forecasts. if you look at the pattern of growth over the course of the year, it is consistent with

those types of estimates from cbo and others. this.nk you for doing 0.25 drop in growth? then you say a loss of jobs. are you saying we would have gained 125,000 in which case? >> let me be clear on two things. fromata we saw today was said temper. this was about october. second of all, this is a change from what otherwise would have happened. it we had not had a shut down and we had not had the debt brinkring steamship -- --nship -- we will have jobs created in the month of october.

this is a measure of the cost of the shutdown. the forecasts are lower than what the old forecast were. we are still forecasting positive growth for the fourth quarter. less than they were before. >> thank you. appreciate it. joined -- ontw we the next "washington journal" we are joined by representative joe barton. look at the nation's intelligence gathering agency, and the use of drones with representative adam schiff. liveington journal" is

on c-span every day at 7 a.m. eastern. the house energy and commerce committee on thursday will look into the implementation of the affordable care act and its health care exchanges. live coverage here on c-span at 9 a.m. eastern. pakistani prime minister says u.s. drone strikes has deeply disturbed his people and is detrimental to eliminating terrorism. speech on45 minute u.s.-pakistan relations at the u.s. institute of peace. >> some of you have been here for a couple of hours. i really appreciate your patience. we are delighted to be hosting prime minister sharif. i think everyone is well aware

of the fact that pakistan's success is world success, and world success is american success. we congratulate pakistan on the peaceful transition of power, democratic elections. it was a remarkable showing of strength by your party. not expected. quite a showing of strength. i would like to recognize a few people who are here today. i can't-- ike, a member of the board. andrew wilder, our vice president for south and central a joke. -- asia. and our pakistan director, a good team of people who bought brought this team together -- event together. i think everyone in the room is pretty familiar with u.s. ip, but others are watching from television. the united states institute of peace has a mission, globally, of attempting to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent

conflict. that is really our focus. we work very closely with the state department, the defense department, usaid, other government entities, ngo's, and parties all over the world to further that mission. our most active programs are now in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan. our south and central asia program is quite large. where pakistan alone is concerned, we have convened roughly 80 meetings here with experts from all over the world to talk about pakistan and how to move pakistan forward, in the last three years alone. we have done a lot of analytical work in pakistan, looking at the things that prompt violence and what might be done to lessen the

likelihood of violence, tilda -- build the capacity of civil society. talk about differences of opinion. as everybody knows, we are very actively involved in the election process in afghanistan. stability for afghanistan is critically important for stability in pakistan. the last thing you need is a collapse and ethnic tsunami arising from afghanistan, because it will not be contained within those borders. it prime minister is in a difficult part of the world. he has a difficult job. we appreciate his being here. the event will involve remarks from the prime minister. we will ask steve hadley, a former national security advisor in the bush administration, to sit with the prime minister and

ask questions in a casual setting after the prime minister has finished with his remarks. when we are done, i would ask that everyone remain seated while the official party leaves, and i thank you for your patience already, and hope you enjoyed this event. mr. prime minister, will you come forward? [applause] >> thank you. congressman, jim marshall,

president, u.s. ip, mr. stephen hadley, distinguished guests, amazing gentleman, i am honored to speak at this prestigious for him -- four room -- forum on peace and regional development. we appreciate usip's noble mission of promoting peace and understanding among nations. ladies and gentlemen, i have come here as the elected leader of pakistan, a land of ancient civilizations and rich cultural traditions, but still young and aspiring to be modern, moderate, and progressive.

180 million enterprising, hard- working people, dreaming of a better model in a rapidly changing world. they yearn for peace, security, and well-being that have eluded them for the past many decades. it is their hopes and aspirations i have come here to voice before this learned gathering. ladies and gentlemen, this has been a momentous year in our history. not only have we had a free, fair, and transparent general election, but a transfer of power from one elected government to another.

an elected president succeeded another elected president in a graceful sermon he the entire nation witnessed with a deep sense of satisfaction. these events would, of course, be of a routine nature to you. but for us, they represent a remarkable transformation of our democratic venture, signifying critical maturity not only for the electorate, but for the mainstream parties as well. they will surely strengthen the democratic institutions in pakistan. ladies and gentlemen, we view the mandate given to our party as a trust of the nation, which we shall endeavor to protect and promote in a manner that strengthens the democratic institutions and enhances the welfare of the people.

this is a new and confident pakistan. but i am not oblivious of the daunting challenges that we have inherited. my government is fully aware of the enormous economic and security challenges that face us today. we are also conscious that the people of pakistan have high expectations from us, given the fact that earlier terms in office introduced reforms to liberalize the economy, strengthen the private sector, facilitate foreign investment, and create a business climate in the country. these enabled us to complete major infrastructure projects, such as modern motorways, ports, airports, and dams.

we intend to resume our journey where it was interrupted by the military coup in 1999, with reforms at home and a new direction in foreign policy. we want well-being of all our people without any discrimination. ladies and gentlemen, we also recognize the realization of this agenda requires internal peace and security, as well as peace and stability in the neighborhood, which is why we are determined to transform our relation with friends around the world, but more importantly, with our immediate neighbors. i am, however, aware that the greatest challenge to pakistan comes from terrorism and extremism.

pakistan is neither a source of nor the epicenter of terrorism, as is sometimes alleged. in fact, pakistan itself has been a major victim of the scourge for over a decade. pakistan sacrifices in the struggle against terrorism and extremism are well known. we have faced hundreds of suicide attacks in the past decade. we have lost over 7000 of our brave soldiers, security personnel, and policeman. our casualties exceeded 40,000 lives. our sacrifices are immeasurable, both in terms of the loss of human lives and the damage caused to our infrastructure.

excuse me. my government has resolved to bring this cycle of bloodshed and violence to an end. but it cannot be done overnight, nor can it be done by unleashing senseless force and star citizens without first making every effort to bring the misguided and confused elements of society back to the mainstream. we also have to ensure that the political parties and civil society are on the same page. the political parties and civil society are on the same page so as to create the environment necessary to tackle this menace. it was to this end that an extraordinary expression of national unity and cohesion -- the party conference underlined the imperative need of giving peace a chance.

ladies and gentlemen, my government is also determined to address the challenge posed by a weak economy. while recognizing the urgency of focusing on the energy or, which has hampered our natural growth national growth and created huge social unrest. major reforms have already been introduced to ensure some macroeconomic policies, to reduce budgetary deficits that show balance of payment, curb inflationary pressure, and reduce the country's dependence on foreign loans and assistance. we are also engaged in efforts to bring half a million new

taxpayers. these measures should enhance the tax to gdp ratio from the current law of nine percent -- of 9% to 15% by 2018. it has been decided to privatize the major state owned enterprises, including entities such as the national airlines, the steel mills, and the national oil and gas companies. turning to foreign relations, i wish to state that we firmly believe that a peaceful, stable, and united pakistan is in pakistan's vital interest. our efforts are therefore focused on helping afghanistan, which is growing through a vitally important phase, with security and critical transition underway. pakistan wishes these transitions to be peaceful and smooth. we also wish the international community to remain engaged in

supporting pakistan's reconstruction and economic relevance. we hope for an afghanistan that is firmly on the path of stability and prosperity. an essential element of our policy -- we strongly support an inclusive afghan-led peace and reconciliation process. during president karzai's recent visit to pakistan, we reaffirm our solidarity with afghanistan and its people. i also showed president karzai that we wish neither to interfere in afghanistan's internal affairs, nor do we have any favorites in afghanistan. it is our earnest hope to see the afghans themselves united for peace, prosperity, and development of their country. simultaneously, we are making

efforts to upgrade our bilateral relationships with afghanistan. my own vision is it should be defined by a strong economic partnership. in addition to hosting billions of afghan refugees for decades, pakistan is extending more than $450 million for afghanistan's reconstruction and capacity building, with special focus on infrastructure and education sectors. we have also decided to intend the karachi-to show up -- peshawa highway to kabul, to bring afghanistan into the regional economic hub. we believe we can work for regional economic cooperation that would reinforce regional

trade, energy, and communication corridors. corridors include participating in may get energy projects. turkmenistan, afghanistan, pakistan, india, and central asia, south asia will create a project that would undoubtedly help strengthen efforts for peace and stability, and advance our dominant objectives of progress and prosperity. our other important neighbor is india. with which we share a common history, as well as common destiny. our past and our future are intertwined.

pakistan is happy to see the people of india live in peace and security. the people of pakistan want to resolve all standing issues with india through dialogue and negotiations. we are confident there are areas where we can make progress. we also wish to put ourselves on the path for normalizing trade relations with india. my meeting with the prime minister last night in new york reflected this desire. i am confident we can resolve all issues, as long as we stay engaged. we do not want isolated incidents to interrupt our dialogue. our message is simple. economic development in south asia depends on peace and security in the region. therefore, all of us have a stake in working for these noble objectives, for our own state --

sake as well as the sake of future generations. it is about time the sides address their bilateral issues with utmost seriousness. they should avail themselves of the opportunity of devoting their energies and resources to development and betterment of their teeming millions. may i add that had our two countries not wasted their precious resources in a never- ending arms race, we would not only have avoided the futile conflicts, but also emerged as stable and prosperous nations. i wish to ensure this august audience that pakistan desires to live in peace with its neighbor. we would not be found wanting in walking the extra mile. our dream is to realize the potential of mutually beneficial

economic cooperation at the bilateral level, as well as the broader regional level. even more promising are the prospects of interregional cooperation. we are a technologically advanced, fast-growing region. south asia has a chance to benefit from the energy rich central asia and west asia. there is a huge potential for interregional trade, transit, and connectivity. pakistan provide central asia with the shortest access to the warm waters of the arabian sea. ladies and gentlemen, contrary to common perception, pakistan- united states relations have stood the test of time.

despite the occasional pickups, the solid foundation of this vital relationship has always why should the -- whether the occasional storms and turbulence. as democracy takes loose in pakistan, there is support for building a strong and stable partnership between the two countries. it should be based on mutual interest and mutual respect, as so clearly articulated by president obama in his speech. our country share perceptions and interests on a wide range of issues. these include afghanistan's peace and stability, in south asia in the middle east, as well as extremism and terrorism. moreover, despite the planned drawdown, there will be a continuing need for close cooperation between the two countries, especially in afghanistan. key issues of mutual concern include terrorism, united nations reform, international

economic cooperation, and the environment. pakistan appreciates the constructive role the u.s. has historically played in defusing tensions between afghanistan and between pakistan and india. with growing influence in india, the u.s. has the capacity to do more to help the sides resolve their court disputes, and in promoting a culture of cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, there is, however, the matter of drone strikes, which are deeply disturbed and agitated our people. in my first statement to the parliament, i made a strong commitment to ending the attacks. both parties in a national

conference have declared that the use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity, but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country. this issue has become a major irritant in our bilateral relationship as well. i would therefore stress the need for an end to drone attacks. ladies and gentlemen, it is my endeavor to approach this important relationship with an open and fresh mind. leaving behind the baggage of trust deficit and mutual suspicions. instead, cooperation in key areas, including trade, investment, energy, technology,

and agriculture, under the rubric of strategic dialogue, should be the main plan of our partnership. as large democracies, there should be greater interaction between our countries, not only at the parliamentary level, but through exchange of businessmen, students, opinion makers, and tourism, as these would help remove many of our misperceptions. moreover, the traditionally strong ties at the military level should be liberated. the vibrant community of pakistani americans is playing an important role in bringing our nations closer. i am thankful to them, as they constitute a permanent link between our countries that can and should play unimportant role in eliminating the negative perceptions. ladies and gentlemen, as a responsible nuclear power and a major development country, pakistan is destined to play a key role in regional stability and world peace and security.

pakistan remains fully alive to protecting its sovereignty, integrity, and independents. without engaging in an arms race, pakistan will maintain credible minimum deterrence to ensure regional security and stability. we will consistently pursue the rules of disarmament on a nondiscriminatory basis. it is our hope that the united states will follow an evenhanded and nondiscriminatory approach. it feels like civil nuclear cooperation. as you would be aware, pakistan is a country blessed with him nor ms. human and material resources. it is strategically located at the crossroads of south and east asia on one side, and central asia and west asia on the other. pakistan is a natural land

bridge connecting these two vast regions, and thus has the potential of becoming a hub of transit and trade among these regions, with a widening civil society, a critical media and independent judiciary, a huge reservoir of educated young population, and the phenomenal expansion of ip networks. pakistan is emerging as a modern, knowledge-based society, with a developing physical infrastructure, attractive investment incentives. pakistan is poised to attract its due share from the process of globalization. we started democratic transition after the may elections, hailed by the international community. it has also instilled confidence among the investor community

within that country and abroad. i avail myself of this opportunity to invite the united states private sector to join us in efforts for sustained economic growth and development. it is the key for progress across the entire spectrum of challenges that we are facing today, from terrorism and extremism to other sectors. it is also essential for strengthening democracy and the rule of law. this is what we have learned from our own experience. this is what i recall president

franklin roosevelt emphasizing in one of his speeches. true freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. people who are hungry and out of jobs are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. ladies and gentlemen, i am aware of the fact that the driving motivation of the founding fathers of this great nation was an intense desire to live in a country where religious freedom and economic opportunities would be available to all. our founding fathers to sought to establish a homeland with similar goals. there is therefore a natural affinity between our peoples. the overwhelming majority have formed a belief in the same just and merciful god, which reminds me of jesus christ's sermon on the mount, when he declared, blessed are the peacemakers. some six centuries later, when the holy crown was revealed to fully profit mohammed, peace be

upon him, we were reminded of the eternal truths. we made you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other. the most honored of you in the sight of god is he who is most righteous of you. let us therefore endeavor, ladies and gentlemen, to know each other better, so we can all make our own modest contribution to making the world a better place. thank you. [applause]

>> again, prime minister, it is a real honor to have you with us today. thank you for your thoughtful remarks. i just have two or three questions that i thought we might use as an opening for further conversation and elaboration on some of the points you made in your address. you are seen widely as someone who prioritizes the roof five -- the full

pakistani economy as a way to the country's success, and to peace. how challenging is this task? do you feel you have managed to put the economy on a path to sustained progress, even though you have only been in office for four months? could you talk a little bit about your hopes for the pakistani economy? >> we are facing a huge challenge in pakistan, which i just now mentioned in my address. the economy is also one of those huge challenges we are confronted with. our party, while in the 1990's, while we were of course in office, came out with very bold economic reforms that became very popular in the country. we very successfully implemented those reforms in the 1990's, which also included privatization, the denationalization of state owned enterprises. we did so with other state owned enterprises very successfully. we were running into losses, and

losses were being picked up the government. they are now making huge profits, and paying tax worth billions of rupees in pakistan today. the economy is very badly effected -- affected by the scourge of terrorism we have been facing in pakistan, as i just mentioned. we have to put the economy right. today, energy is one of our biggest problems. it has not been addressed by successive governments in pakistan, the previous governments. this is one of the major issues which is being dealt with by this government.

i hope that the international community will certainly support us in dealing with our economy, not in terms of any aid, but i believe that a lot of other things can be done, especially in when the unit of states of america opens their doors to -- united states of american opens their doors to create trade in america. we are struggling hard to deal with the law and order situation, which i just mentioned, including the terrorism. once we are able to effectively deal with it, i believe the economy will be booming. both are interdependent. if you want to have a conducive investment climate in the country, you have to have a good law and order situation in the country. to do that, you must address the

issue of poverty, unemployment. we are dealing with this issue. these are our top priorities. >> you mentioned energy. we are dealing with this issue. these are our top priorities. >> you mentioned energy and to have affected the economy more than the energy crisis. do you agree with that assessment? could you tell us about your plans for the energy sector, since it is so important for the economic growth you have talked about? >> this is an issue which has been there for the last several years, not being addressed by the previous government. the government before that. we have had outages for several hours of the day in most of the

areas of pakistan. we have been able to fix this problem to some extent. i would say to a small extent. by paying off 500 billion rupees immediately after coming into office. i think that was a very big decision and very big step our government took to solve this problem, to at least pay off the debts. now, of course, the power system in pakistan -- their are a lot of things in the system which we are trying to overcome. under capacity -- the plants are running under capacity. that is being addressed.

inefficiency, of course, has crept into our system. we have come out with a very comprehensive power policy. that provides means to the investor to come in. we have also announced an upfront tariff. they do not have to waste their time in negotiating with the government. it is a very transparent system we have introduced in pakistan. pakistan has tremendous potential in three different sectors, in the overall energy and power sector. one is the power generation. pakistan has the ability to produce more than 100,000 megawatts in this sector alone. the government is undertaking three major projects. i just named them for you.

[indiscernible] these three will produce about 15,000 megawatts -- 16,000 megawatts of electricity. we also have set up an energy park near karachi which will produce about 6000 megawatts. this will not only help with the gap in supply and demand that we are facing today, but we will also be able to cater to energy. i would like to welcome the american investors from all over the world to come in and look at this sector. we make sure that the principal as well as the prophets are fully repatriated.

>> in your address, you spoke passionately about approving pakistan's relations with india. >> my favorite subject. you see? [laughter] >> it is a difficult subject, and not without controversy. can you say a little bit about your vision? how could you improve the relationship? particularly kashmir. is there a formula for bringing peace to kashmir? >> my government paved the way and laid the foundation for building better relations with india. it was very kind to undertake the first ever state visit to

pakistan in 1998. this was soon after the nuclear detonations by india, and subsequently followed by pakistan. that was a very successful visit. we decided we would resolve all our outstanding issues through negotiations, through peaceful means, and through talks. it was a major breakthrough. kashmir was mentioned very categorically in that agreement. i was pleasantly surprised by the statement in lahore. it let us announce -- let us declare 1999 as the year of resolution of all problems that exist between pakistan and india, and i was pleasantly

surprised to hear that. we both started working for it. we established back channels. mr. musharraf toppled our government unconstitutionally. and imposed martial law in the country. you know what he did to the country. he fired the judges, sent them home, house arrested them. we had to struggle for the reinstatement of all those judges who were unconstitutionally thrown out of office by mr. musharraf. anyway, the subject that i was discussing -- we would like to pick up the threads from where we left off in 1999.

and then move forward. i had a good meeting in new york last month. we discussed all these issues. whenever we want to move forward, something happens, and then the process again gets a serious setback. for example, when we were about to meet in new york, just weeks and days before that meeting, there were clashes on the line of control. people were getting killed from both sides -- our side, their side. we also have been in a very unfortunate arms race since the partition, for almost 66 years. i mentioned this in my speech also. i believe that we need to get out of this situation.

and i believe very strongly that both countries will have to sit down together. if we sit down together, if we seriously address these issues, i do not think we will face any problem in addressing and solving these issues. kashmir, of course, is a difficult issue, difficult to resolve. i think by sitting and talking we will be able to find some way of resolving that, because that is a flashpoint, not only in the region but in the whole world. any solution which can come about will not be able to come about unless the people of all three sides endorse this. the people of india, the people of pakistan, and the people of kashmir.

and of course we want to enhance our trade with india. there is so much we can do together by enhancing our trade and economic ties with each other. >> mr. prime minister, thank you very much. we are out of time, unfortunately. the prime minister has a schedule to keep. i want to thank you for being here, and invite jim marshall to the stage again for a presentation. >> thank you very much. >> a picture from your visit. >> very efficient. [laughter] >> we try to be. thank you all. if you will remain seated while the official party leaves. thank you all. >> all the best to you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> in a few moments, a discussion on the future of afghanistan. in an hour, secretary of state john kerry talks about syria after meeting in london with foreign ministers and representatives of the syrian opposition. after that, more about syria with house intelligence committee member mike rogers, and ranking member eliot angle. >> on the next "washington we will be joined by representative joe barton of texas to discuss the committee's

hearing on the affordable care act. we will also look at the nation's intelligence-gathering andcies, domestic international surveillance, and the use of drones. we will speak with adam schiff. is live on journal" c-span everyday day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and commerceenergy committee on thursday will look into the implementation of the affordable care act and its health care exchanges. you can see live coverage on c- span at nine a clock a.m. eastern. 00 a.m. eastern. nasa's degrasse tyson on calls for scientists and engineers. >> if nasa is healthy, you do not need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do.

on the paper.it there will be calls for engineers to help us go fishing on your rowboat, where there is an ocean of water that has been liquid for billions of years. we will dig through the soil of mars and look for life. that will give us the best biologists. look at the national portfolio today. physics, chemistry, geology, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, all of the stem fields. science, technology, energy, and math. flywheel nasa is a that society caps for innovations. book tv has aired 40,000 programs about nonfiction books and authors. every weekend on c-span 2. >> now, a forum on afghanistan's future, as the u.s. winds down its 12 year military commitment

at the end of next year. the foreign-policy initiative hosts this hour-long discussion. >> welcome, everybody. i think you have had a long morning already. we are going to liven it up a little bit on the stage. if anyone still cares about afghanistan, i am assuming that is why you are here, and you are going to pay full attention to what these gentlemen have to say. it struck me when i was doing my research and preparation for today that the thing about the panel you have in front of you is that afghanistan is well represented. each of these individuals have a good knowledge of the situation on the ground there, especially historically. everyone has a depth of reporting in the region. what you also have is individuals who are very familiar and specialist in all the issues at stake. seth jones worked with special operations command. he has a very close view of the

military strategy. counterterrorism is one of his fields of expertise. you also have a specialist on asia, and particularly india. he can bring in the india perspective. india has a significant role to play in afghanistan, and it has not been at the forefront of the u.s. strategy in that region over the last decade. of course, dr. kagan is best known for his work in iraq, although he and septra both been at rand corporation. what you have here today is an opportunity to remind ourselves what is at stake in afghanistan, and why the u.s. should care. the first question i was given was to ask what was at stake. but i want to put it in a much more pointed way.

over the last couple years, the term war has become unpopular in washington. in fact, from the cia to the white house, it has been made very clear that we have been using the term war for war on terror, and it was probably a mistake. i am conscious of the fact that every other day, i get another casualty report from the battlefield in afghanistan, where u.s. soldiers are still dying. as far as they know, they are still fighting a war. you have an afghan election coming up. you have united states pulling out of afghanistan, to a large degree. you have a nation that has completely lost interest in what is going on over there, and is not given a reason to care by its leaders.

behind the stage, we picked our first victim. he is going to begin this conversation. i have interviewed him before. i can promise you he is not boring. >> that is a very kind introduction. i will be brief. and then we will all discuss various aspects. i think we will have a useful q&a portion of this. let me highlight a few things. if you look at polling data, it is probably worth being upfront about this. according to a july poll from 2013, conducted by the washington post and abc news, 20% of americans believe the war in afghanistan was worth fighting. not just is, but was worth fighting. that differs significantly from

october of 2001, the month after the september 11 attacks, when 90% of americans, 97% of republicans and 85% of democrats, supported u.s. military action in afghanistan. over the following decade plus, we have seen a huge drop in support about whether we should have gone there in the first place. i am going to argue, somewhat controversially, that i still strongly will argue, as we peered on the future, that the u.s. has said it is going to stop combat operations by december 2014. it is still not clear what that means. it has not been an announcement of what force number is going to look like. i am going to argue that four major factors should give one pause in exiting afghanistan.

the first is, you would not know it by political statements. but al qaeda's global leadership today is still located in this region. afghanistan, pakistan. it has been weakened by drone strikes. we have seen that this week with the human rights watch report. it has been weakened. but in my view, a civil war or a successful taliban, -- taliban- led insurgency, would almost certainly allow al qaeda back into afghanistan and pakistan. i was just there last month along the border. there is still a presence of terrorists, including al qaeda fighters. virtually everyone i spoke to involved in targeting them, people i have worked with in the

past, have said they will be there after 2014. there is concern in some areas of the east. they may be there in larger numbers. the global leadership is still there. there are a number of sunni jihadist in the region that are not going away. some of them, including the taliban in pakistan, put an suv in times square. another conducted a major terrorist attack in mumbai. there is still a terrorism issue. the civil war or a successful taliban-led insurgency would deal a severe blow to human rights, including women's rights. the taliban would likely reverse progress in a country that has experienced an extraordinary improvement in the number of female business owners, government officials, primary, secondary, and university students.

you would see a major backlash. third, burgeoning war in this region would likely increase instability with india, pakistan, iran, and russia, and i am going to add china to this. all have nuclear weapons or a nuclear program. there is a concern about regional instability, particularly between pakistan and india. i conclude by saying a u.s. exit from this country would likely foster a perception about u.s. reliability. when you look at al qaeda statements recently, i am going to leave you with one final thought. an american exit from afghanistan -- we have already seen this in jihadist networks. if it were to happen, it would likely be viewed and trumpeted by extremist groups, including al qaeda, as their most important victory since the

departure of soviet forces from afghanistan in 1989. that is a very, very dangerous legacy we have to think very carefully about. we could talk about how to proceed later, but let me leave you with that thought. >> you were nodding your head at a few points there. i know the nuclear issue is one you have spent a lot of time on. can you take the floor? >> i would be happy to start by emphasizing a point seth just made. the american and international project in afghanistan over the last several years has been far more successful than people give us or the afghans credit for. remember, this is a country that went through several decades of violent war. every state and societal institution was essentially destroyed. when you look at afghanistan today, what you actually have is a constitutional regime of the kind that was simply impossible

to succeed under the high tide of soviet occupation and the painful years after. you are now looking at a country that has the potential to build on a structure that, if improved and invested in, can actually provide more opportunities, including for those currently opposing the state. just recognizing that this has been a success, you can put together a structure where all you had before was an anarchy. >> americans do not care about that, because their leaders keep telling them the afghans are corrupt, dishonest, unreliable, that karzai is an unreliable partner. they are never given a reason to believe in anything the u.s. has achieved in afghanistan. >> i think the facts refute that

on the face of it. development indicators in afghanistan today are better than they have been in a long time. corruption is endemic to all third world societies. afghanistan is by no means either particularly egregious or unique. the question is not whether one needs to bail out afghanistan because it has the maladies of an underdeveloped state, but whether we can persist consistently in afghanistan, not necessarily for the sake of afghanistan alone, but because it fundamentally comports with our own interests. those interests come back to the same interests we went into

afghanistan to begin with in 2001. there is still an unresolved security problem in afghanistan that directly affects the well- being of the american people, and those of our allies. >> is there anyone on this panel who would disagree with that? >> not me, for sure. i think that as we think about afghanistan and why it matters, there is a tendency to treat it in isolation, to have this discussion as though the discussion we were having is whether we should put troops into afghanistan or not. when people say it is not worth it for us to be there, why should we go into afghanistan if we are not going into yemen, the problem is that you start from reality where you actually are. we have been in afghanistan. we have made an enormous effort in afghanistan. we have made and in norma's amount of progress. there is a force getting after our enemies. this is taking it to al qaeda and allies.

they are doing that increasingly. but they will not be ready in 2014 to take over that responsibility without american assistance, because they were not designed for that role, anymore than iraqi security forces were designed to be ready to take over responsibility. >> domestic political deadlines? >> it was a negotiated deadline with the iraqis that originated with us. in the case of afghanistan, it also originated with us, but has become an international deadline the afghans hold us to. but they are arbitrary deadlines, and were tied to the situation on the ground. i bring up iraq, recognizing how painful it topic it is. just because something is painful does not mean we should talk about whether it is important. talking about the path to zero, the model is iraq.

iraq worked out pretty well. there is no reason we should not do that in afghanistan. iraq is a catastrophe, which has gone unreported. you have now a franchise that is back to the level of car bombing that it is conducting at the height of the surge in 2007, before the violence came down. that has all happened since american forces withdrew. the administration line is, we do not need to worry about it. it is in a place called iraq, and we do not believe in that. >> they fly the flag of al qaeda. they read statements in the name of al qaeda. >> they set up these islamic emirates, and they fly al qaeda flags and have foreign fighters. >> it is everything they have to say about who they are. >> and everything we know about who they are.

what the administration is trying to do -- this is important. the administration is trying to define the threat from al qaeda down to be only those individuals who were either involved in the 9/11 attacks or part of the organization at the time. if you want to picture, in the white house somewhere, a poster that has the faces of all those people on it, with x through faces of people we have taken down, i think that is pretty much administration strategy. the problem is, the world has changed since 9/11, and al qaeda has, although in some cases it has not. >> you have people, like at guantanamo, who went from afghanistan to sudan, back to afghanistan. and he was handed back to the

libyans, he was released by gaddafi, founded an organization in the east of libya, and we no longer call him al qaeda. he is one of the original al qaeda members. we want to now say he is a link or associated group. even having a pedigree that goes back 30, 40 years is not enough to get you called al qaeda today in washington. >> right. and we spend too much of our time thinking about who is currently planning to attack the united states. and not enough time thinking about what capabilities the global al qaeda movement has to attack the united states over the long-term, and what are we doing to address those capabilities, and the spread of those ideologies. >> i want to put two things to you. i think you and i were both there from the beginning. and we remember what people today in america seem to have forgotten, which is the promises the united states made when they

came into afghanistan. to me, this is a very important point, because it speaks to integrity, honor, loyalty, and the nature of being a good ally. this was raised a little bit by you. the reason i find it so significant is that i think when we think of the united states and what it is meant to stand for and represent, it is very hard to look afghans in the eye today and say that we are honorable people who keep our word. we lost interest in keeping our word. just because you wear traditional robes and do not speak english does not mean you do not get it. you know when you have been betrayed or let down. that is how a large majority of afghans feel, which only makes them more resentful. how do we end up in this position where afghans feel

betrayed and we feel we wasted our efforts? >> a good point. the u.s. has promised much, and it has given much. it has given both treasure and blood. we can talk about how well it was used and what the right strategies were. i will be the first one to say that big mistakes were made over that time. we look afghans in the eye in 2001 and said we will be committed to reducing, if not eliminating, terrorist groups operating from this region. we will stay until that objective is met. what we have now said is, sure, that objective has not been met, but we are still leaving anyway. the blame has largely been placed on the karzai government. i will also say very bluntly that there have been massive corruption problems within the government. as there have been in any government in south asia.

there have been challenges building national security apparatus. there has been corruption problems in the u.s. dealing with contracts in afghanistan. i would say, first and foremost not just to the afghan people, can we look the american people in the eye and say we have reached a point in afghanistan where the american homeland is safe, for now, and in the foreseeable future? i think the evidence, as i have spoken to operators on the ground from the region last month, suggests no, not at all. there are foreign fighters continuing to come into camps in the region. there is still active plotting. the leader of this organization is still headquartered in this area. this organization is not bad by

any means. >> or decimated. >> or decimated. it is not on the verge of strategic defeat, as some would argue. >> i will come back to you. >> on the contrary, if you look at any portrayal of where all qaeda is today globally, it has a much larger footprint and a much more advanced organization than it did in 2001. also than it did in 2009. it is absolutely unjustifiable to talk about this organization as having been decimated. i want to follow-up on the issue of betraying the afghan people. it is very important. not just a question of american honor. nor is it just a question of, will other people believe in us, which is also especially after the syria debacle extremely important. and egypt, and many other things. and probably iran. but it is very important for practical reasons. what is al qaeda? not just a terrorist organization. it sees itself as the vanguard

of insurgency in the muslim world. >> political revolutionaries. >> what is our ideal end state? that the muslim world defeat this insurgency. not only rejected, but defeated. in order for that to happen, we need people in muslim countries to stand up and fight against al qaeda. they have done that in iraq and afghanistan. i know that seth and i have been on the ground and spoken with iraqis and afghans who say, are you going to be there with us when these guys come back and try to kill our families? the fact that in iraq has been the answer has been "heck no," and we are having the answer in afghanistan about going to zero, that undermines the best possible outcome we could have in this struggle, muslim people rising up against this hateful ideology on their own.

>> seth, you and i both know, the former spy chief of afghanistan told me years ago when i asked him about that, he said to me, he said afghanistan is a small, poor third world nation. we do not have any illusion, and we do not think for one moment we can influence the united states. but i will tell you this. i have been fighting these people long before you came to my country. these mountains were here before you. these rivers were here. and they will continue to flow after you are gone. he said the leader of the taliban, these are truly forces of darkness, and they cannot engender a vision for this world. so i will be fighting, whether or not you are. i found that to be true then and true today. what i love about it is this articulate afghan man, he put it

so perfectly. the afghans were fighting al qaeda long before the u.s. was in battle with al qaeda. now we look at the afghans and say, you are on your own. i spoke this morning to someone on the ground in kabul, and the sense i have from the john kerry-karzai negotiations is neither of them are particularly committed to this agreement they have come up with. that is not good for us -- afghanistan and is not good for the u.s. can you pick up on that? >> is very important to recognize one simple fact. we cannot afford to let all qaeda and jihadist islam more generally enjoy another victory. i think there are many jihadists in afghanistan and around the world who believe they successfully confronted the soviet union and defeated it. that empowered the movement.

it has become extremely dangerous for us, not only in south asia, but worldwide. it cannot end up leaving the region in the situation where they control the same conclusion that they have defeated the united states as well. that is something we have -- ought to keep in mind as a strategic consequence of the way we manage the transition. another point i want to make, getting afghanistan right does not require overinvestment on the part of the united states. it is important to understand that what we need to do for success in afghanistan does not require us to bankrupt the united states. it does not require an open- ended uncontrolled commitment of resources. >> which is unpopular. >> which is unpopular, and which is unnecessary, given the gains made in the last several years. what it does require is a

responsibility, a consistency of leadership, and a willingness to hold out support until afghanistan can make the transition to being independent. >> how long are you talking? >> it is extremely hard to make that judgment. but we have to be committed to the principle that as long as the afghans are willing to put their foot to the pedal the united states will stand with them in making this possible. this is the kind of discussion we ought to have. in the abstract, discussions about the numbers of troops, discussions about lines of assistance, these haven't been helpful. we need to assure afghans that if they make their contribution the united states will not be found wanting. you discover the numbers are actually not as overwhelming as

people think. i hope in the discussion that follows we get a chance to explore this. >> seth, i will say some listening to this might think, these guys are crazy. this is a done deal. we are out of there. not even going to consider anything other than how fast they can get out. >> one, the decision has not been reached. december 2014 is in theory the end of combat operations. what does that mean? has not been decided. i am a little bleak on whether this administration is committed to keeping a necessary footprint in afghanistan. this brings up an issue that we might disagree on somewhat. which is, what should we be doing? what should the footprint look like? i will briefly say -- state, these situations are very difficult -- different, but when i look around the world of where

the u.s. has been able to deploy forces, whether it has been in the philippines or a range of other countries. philippines after 9/11, with a somewhat light footprint supporting local forces, i am not convinced at this point in the struggle that those numbers have to be higher. i think the u.s. could remain in afghanistan with a legal counterterrorism footprint that is joint special operations command forces. u.s. special operation forces and other conventional forces to do basic training, advising, and assisting. enablers, airpower, conducting strikes in case there are, in case there is pressure by the taliban or groups on a city. predator reiber capability that can collect intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance.

i look at numbers between eight and 12,000 u.s. forces -- 8000 and 12,000 u.s. forces that let afghans do the bulk of the fighting. the u.s. is largely in a supporting role, as being sufficient. >> the afghans are willing to do the bulk of the fighting. >> they have been. afghans have been taking multiples of the casualties american and international forces have been taking for quite some time. they are bleeding in this war, and they are continuing to recruit. i want to make one point about the numbers we talk about. we can come to different conclusions about feasibility. but there was a question, is this something we are prepared to say that if the requirement in afghanistan to achieve american vital national security interests is 15,000 troops, but the white house only wants to put 12,000 troops in their -- there, is the president prepared to say he is going to compromise vital american national interest over 2000 troops?

is that a rational tabulation? are we prepared to say we will put in 12,370 five troops, but not one more? if we lose therefore, so be it? you ought to think that we have vital national security interest in afghanistan, in which case we would be well advised to put in the resources required to achieve that. or you do not, in which case we should not be there. >> what that reminds me of is general shin seki saying you need to hundred thousand troops to hold it before the iraq war. that was unpopular. it reminded me of general mcchrystal making a recommendation on numbers. before he made his recommendation -- political leaders seeking political advice from the military rather than pure military advice. even if you go back to afghan -- vietnam, that has always been

the case, but no less troubling today. we have a question from the audience that was one of my favorite questions. it is something. i have been shot at from the pakistani side of the order. i pressed president musharraf are on this question. the cia said if you let them operate on pakistani soil they could find osama bin laden. i said, you are the president, you can say whatever you like. and where was osama bin laden found? who found him, by the way? i know this is something you spent a lot of time on. it is a question that i think is extremely important. president karzai annoyed a lot of americans saying, you're in the wrong villages, you should be across the border.

what people still need to understand about what he is saying is you and i both know the problem lies in the safe havens in pakistan. you are not doing anything about it. so this question comes from peter with the american enterprise institute who says, american enemies have complete freedom of movement in pakistan. how can we defeat al qaeda without addressing the issue of pakistan? we cannot open up another front, we can't afford another war, but that suggest nothing can be done. what we have in pakistan is a failed policy. it was a failed policy under president bush, and it is failed policy under president obama. who wants to take that one? >> i can start. let me just start with what i consider to be the reality, which is the war in afghanistan, partly what we are talking about here, there are plenty of afghan taliban. 20 of individuals in afghanistan

fighting. that said, it is worth noting very specifically that the command and control structures for every single insurgent group, every single major insurgent group, taliban, haqqani network, are all on the pakistan side of the border. that is where the command and control nodes are. the taliban's leadership structure sits in southern pakistan, in baluchistan. one level down in the organizational structure you have three regional committees. one is in cuetta, the the second, the third is an -- in waziristan. the borders are significant. when you look at the command- and-control nodes for al qaeda's global leadership, they

also sit on the pakistan side. indeed, we spent a lot of time talking about afghanistan. there is an afghan dimension to it. it is important. but the command-and-control nodes for every major insurgent group sit on the other side. i will say that with both this administration and the last one there have been virtually no -- no major efforts, successful efforts, to target taliban leadership on the pakistan side of the border. there are no but -- drone strikes in baluchistan, virtually no individuals captured. that is where the taliban senior leadership is located. if we wanted to really get

serious about this, and one has to take into consideration, why has little been done, and what are the implications of continuing to do virtually nothing about this? i can leave this to others to solve, but i want to get the threat and reality on the table. there is a very serious pakistan issue. >> can i add two points to that? i think we should at least entertain the hope that pakistan will recognize it is in its interest to do more than it has ever done before for a very simple reason. now that there is a realistic prospect the united states might leave, it could end up leaving behind and afghanistan that becomes a sanctuary for terrorists groups that are as much anti-pakistan as they are anti-afghanistan and anti-united dates. for the first time, pakistan has to confront a reality that afghanistan could begin to feed and funnel terrorist groups that undermine its own interest. we cannot count, however, on pakistan reaching the right conclusions from this. therefore, i think we need to rethink the character of our relationship with pakistan. to my mind, there is no alternative but to make the relationship with pakistan a lot more contingent on pakistani

behaviors that we have historically done. we can debate the details about how this contingency is to be expressed. but if you have a relationship with pakistan that in a fact conveys to them that no matter what late -- they do, american largesse will flow to pakistan on interrupted, you have created a situation they have no incentives to change. at the very least, the u.s. needs to look at itself and its own policies to think about how we might re-engagement pakistan. let me end by saying a word about india. india is deeply concerned that a premature american exit from afghanistan would end up leaving that country in exactly the way the indians pasted in the 1990's, essentially a sanctuary for terrorists groups that would move to attack indian interests. they have said they will do

anything they can to prevent the current government of pakistan from being overthrown by force. we have to recognize realities. the indians do not have the capacity to substitute for the united states. they will look, like many allies, at the united states before they begin to show their hand. the surest way to lose all the regional allies who might be supportive of kabul is for the united states to run first to the exit. it comes back at the end of the day to consistency of policy and consistency of leadership. we should not be surprised to find afghanistan loses many of its regional partners. >> i have to say that i am less

optimistic about pakistan than i am about afghanistan. i think there are things we can do in afghanistan to move it in the right direction. there are forces working in afghanistan moving in the right direction. pakistan is an enormously difficult problem. a country of 190 million people, approaching 100 nuclear weapons, and the largest concentration of terrorist groups anywhere in the world. it is clearly a problem. my question to be fully say, why are we in afghanistan when pakistan is the problem? you have to explain to me why tuition is helped by taking -- the situation is helped by taking a weekend -- weakened al

qaeda taliban infrastructure in pakistan and making it wrong or by trying to persuade the pakistanis to fight the ramifications of that on their side. you cannot win this fight on either side of the line. the corollary is you cannot win in afghanistan if you lose in afghanistan. they are linked in that way. this is too often left out of our discussion entirely. one of the reasons to care about afghanistan is because of pakistan. >> and because of pakistan's nuclear weapons. >> yes. >> another question from the audience. he said, why blame our leaders when it is the media that constantly reports on corruption, failure programs, etc.? i would say we both their responsibility. without any question. the media is culpable. there is some good reporting on afghanistan. not nearly enough. there is some terrible reporting

on afghanistan. what i would point out here to you is that the journalists writing about this stuff are getting calls from government officials who, by the way, love to leak things when they are the ones doing the leaking. they are very active in going after leakers when they do not like weeks because they -- leaks because they counteract the message. apparently the media does not seem to raise much of an objection about that. there is a lot lacking in the media. i take full responsibility for that. i would say to you, i did a piece about the return of al qaeda in afghanistan. the significance of what they were doing and how, for example, after bin laden was killed the announcement that came for his replacement came out of the defective headquarters of al qaeda in a -- afghanistan. the evidence is there, and not enough journalists are paying attention to it. that is definitely a factor. the people giving the message to our deliberately misleading our the leadership. that is what i hold them accountable for.

when we look at the reality on the ground, it is different to the picture painted by the leadership. we all have a responsibility to be honest. not just the media and not just the politicians. policy is something we have not addressed well in the media. a failure of policy in afghanistan. a failure of policy in pakistan. when the afghans ask us what our policy is on pakistan, we do not even have one to tell them. certainly not one that makes any sense or gives them any confidence. we are very quick to hold the military accountable, as we

should be. but no one seems to be as quick to hold the politicians accountable for their failures. the next question comes from the university of wisconsin. i think this is a fair point. with all the signs of progress cited by the panel, what percent of the afghan population is now part of a functioning modern state? we know there is no percentage. but that is not necessarily the benchmark of progress. i do remember an afghanistan the did not have one pane of glass from the length and breadth of the country. kabul today is pretty dramatically different today. >> the objective is not to establish a modern functional state in afghanistan. and that has not been the objective for quite a number of years. i had the privilege of serving on general mcchrystal pasha initial assessment review. we had a long conversation about what exactly the objectives should be.

concluded, and this is what i believe the white house also believed and believes, that the objective is a state in afghanistan regarded as legitimately -- sufficiently legitimate by its people that the nature of the state is not fueling an active insurgency against it. the question is not whether kabul is going to look like washington or topeka. the question is whether the afghan people are going to accept the legitimacy of the government the way most people in most countries around the world and all countries that do not have insurgencies do. that is a different standard in different parts of afghanistan, as you know. when you go into valleys, they do not want any government. when you try to bring government to them you have a big problem. in urban centers, it is a very different situation. i think we have seen some progress. the corruption is important. the corruption has been a driver of instability for a variety of reasons and will continue to be. but we are looking for something that will satisfy the afghan people. that is what we have been driving toward, and as with the progress has been moving toward even though we do not recognize it as a kind of a monomeric -- most americans would want to live in.

>> several of us have spent time over the years in afghanistan. how many types of states there are within it. there is a formal state apparatus that is based out of kabul that has ministries. the when you get in rural areas, you get an informal apparatus. this is a very different kind of structure. this is not the balkans. this is not germany after world war ii, or japan after world war ii. the state system is very different here. there is a limited central government and you get into southern afghanistan, for example, you have tribes, sub- tribes, clans, powerbrokers. the interesting thing is, over the first couple years of the struggle, how many resources the u.s. tried to push through the state system, including building a court apparatus and judges and things we think are near and dear to us. when you get into rural areas, justice is handed down through

informal apparatus. leaders in a village will adjudicate disputes informally. this is not the united states. this is not western-style state apparatus. part of the issue, i think we need to be a little careful about what we are trying to construct and what we should construct. i strongly second fred's point. one of the things that has struck me about the media , and lara, you have been a major exception, is how little people have look at the other side of the struggle. this is not just about focusing on what is going on within the u.s. within the afghan government. there are problems, like in any war. but look at the taliban side, they have had to establish and accountability commission because there has been

corruption within the taliban. they are involved in the drug trade. they are involved in trafficking, in targeted assassination. roughly 75% to 80% of civilians killed are done by the insurgent side. one of the disservice is, i think, to the coverage of this war from the media perspective is when issues of corruption, the focus is on one side. the reality is this is a struggle within and among multiple different organizations that, and there are as many, if not more, challenges within the insurgency as there are within the government. everything from corruption to

the inability of taliban forces to read. when people show me literacy rates among afghan forces i say, well, it is interesting to compare that, they are better than they are the insurgent side. you want to talk about comparison. that has been a bit of a disservice in the media coverage of the war. >> ashley -- >> i would make the point that afghanistan has always been a decentralized state. any mental model that things of afghanistan as a unity central state is using the wrong benchmark. the benchmark we ought to be using is a very simple one. for the average afghan, is security increased in the everyday circumstance of their lives?

has there been a mechanism for dispute resolution and the administration of justice? are ordinary afghans able to conduct their economic activities without undue interference from the state? these are the metrics by which to judge progress. i think as both fred and seth said, the picture varies considerably depending on which part of afghanistan you go to. our objective has to make certain that the portions of afghanistan that have not established progress actually begin to grow and develop on the basis of the example set by their most vessel neighbors -- successful neighbors. >> this last question, i would like everybody to answer it. i'm going to take a question from the audience and add to it myself. we have here, i'm going to mess up your last name, from the christian science monitor. if the qaeda leadership is along the afghan-pack as -- afghan- pakistan border, does that mean the u.s. has lost this war? if we have not won the war in 12 years, what more can u.s. troops the cobblers? what i would like to add to that, there is a narrative that is pushed by the pro-taliban faction and by other people in washington that says the taliban does not have any beef with america beyond the fact you are in their backyard.

there is no ideology. go home and we are done, it is over. those are the people who believe that the taliban and al qaeda's relationship can be questioned and pulled apart.