:

this is not about peace. democracy.t about this is about control. don't have the

uture of freedom in a constitution that protects minority rights you will have contradicflicts. george ern ireland sent there.was he saeid the great intangible o conflict is exhaustion, only at the negotiating table but on the battlefield. factions have to realize that their commitment to culture of violence has peace and therefore they need to move in a different direction. they required to do? they were required to denounce

participate in the destruction of their arms so that the culture of physical to achieve political ends was over. give th sides had to something to achieve that. can you compare northern ireland with the middle east. hen george mitchell was finished he was dispatched where? to the middle east. because the conflict is very similar. so, i just think that american can do moreertainly to keep leaders in those ountries from going to extremes. but there is only so much we can do. been erican military has ing down naire in tampa violence but we can't impose a political solution. we can only provide a breathing warring hin which the factions can do that. in that part of the world there

allies of the united states. iraq or karzai. we have to prescribe his brother to help promote a lasting peace in afghanistan. what we can do is what we have already done and i think we are limited. sorry i went on a little too interested in your thoughts about that. >> i don't know if i should be but i would offer two. first, i think we have some allies. one is israel. a pluralist democracy and under threat. favor the peace process. i think it is in their interest. that is one. also think there's another good news story maybe and that islamist where an party won the first election and a peace deal with other parties surrendered power

coalition. and just maybe that can show success. so, i think a lot of what you i think ery true, but there are ways and our vigilance will be necessary that progress can be made. briefly -- thanks for your statement. t was a thought provoking statement. in my opinion we do have friends countries throughout the middle east who essentially that what is s won't have and we any friends if we just pull back. for the u.s.asking army or military to be on the ground. they are asking for our help. and what is happening after the spring is a b remarkable historic development an he arab world, which is

uprising against dictators, by the people. they want freedom and they want a better opportunity to make money for their families. nd in almost every kiss the revolutions have been led by the under or unemployment children middle class who are well educated, who understood how could be.r things and what is happening now in ome of these countries in the conflicts that the revolutions dissimilarhed is not to what has happened before when or toe taeurpb r -- totalitarian reams. that is what about in bosnia-herzegovina. but if we stand back it will get worse. shia conflict i has been going on for a medical

-- millennium plus but of mixes between them in the middle east and it is not a zero sum game. work out o be able to a system and tunisia is the home can feelhere everybody that there is a way for them to w win. and as we said earlier over and over it is in our interests to that because not only it reflects our best national is best for at security. >> if i could briefly follow up with two points. would just, on you are your northern ireland example i of the useful lessons shift . is now in is the british had from a heavy i.r.a.y footprint of the to one that was much lighter, mi-5 and allowed a

peace process to be possible the i.r.a. was so weakened by that point. allies.o have we don't have common interests across the board with all of them. allies that hate extremism. if you look at the progress made somalia tossing out leaders and extremists from other areas, and we do have mali that ations in hate extremism. to n that sense we have gravitate toward those kinds of organizations. thoughtful question and one that has been asked before. too simplistic middle orize the entire east as a conflict between shias and sectarian conflict. i'm not minimizing the fact that

it exists but i think you have to understand it does exist but is thereappening there everythoritarian regimes, one of them except israel, and the drivers of instability as a of these authoritarian regimes are the lack of andtical and social justice economic opportunity. the radicalof that, islamists use that and leverage to gain support for what they are attempting to do. we have to look at the region and see what has taken region and how this very ambitious political trying to drive us out of the region so they can have their way -- and that is 9/11 was, driving us out of the region is one of their major strategic objectives. for us to make certain that that

doesn't explode with this radical islamic movement, which not only threaten the region but the world at large, a world domination objective organization. it is hard for us to get our head around that intellectually idea, not their ours. so, the only answer here is to this, i think, comprehensively what are you trying to achieve is what i the administration to articulate and then individually partners in the region to deal with the realities that they have. realities are se dealing with our allies, r. congressman, who are authoritarian regimes and repressive in dealing with their lack of social ustice, yet we have harmonious relationships that are financially rewarding and the fact is we should be leverage

regimes to move in a different direction. justis why i say it is not kinetic but what is your strategy? suggesting we force emocracy on everybody but i am suggesting that if you focus on instability ers of are injustice to people and lack of economic opportunity you can in the region. and certainly staying engaged it opposed to the sense of futility and hopelessness we get, the culture is dramatically different from the united states, the geography is hard anderything it is easy to say let's just walk away from it. would be a tragedy and it would result in harm to the people. > the chair yao recognizes the chairman of the oversight

subcommittee. very nks for having this insig insightful hearing today. voice to nt to add my the thanks to senator lieberman the congresswoman and your ervice in the mountain digs, the chairman and i were able to brigade h a third combat too many in afghanistan in november of 2011 and the men and womene of and their serving in harm's way long way. i want to thank everyone that is serving to fight and counter the talking about today around the globe, whether philippines or afghanistan or whatever. senator lieberman i want to thank you for comments when you enemy is violent islamist extremism and political identify olo

ideology.- it is extreme illses that use their own begin. i want to shift from some of the talking cause we are about a narrative that endangers homeland. operational use of control and we have a secure southern border. to ask each of you in your opinion how does border southern border but we can't limit it to just southern border we have a long northern border and ocean airports ts and playing into that element. how does national border play in your thoughts with regard to national security i ter countering al qaeda elements and other threats and false

operational an control element? will start with senator lieberm lieberman. >> let me begin the discussion, the latest, but part of the challenge post-9/11 not just the security how do we sion but maintain security in a country been as historically open as ours and that includes al fate of america being as protected us surrounded by two oceans with south. to the north and we have enormous borders and you are never really going to maintain full security unless do your best on those borders. long k that we've come a way since 9/11 toward achieving that. e are probably doing better at airport and airline security than we are at some other

places. i think, our ed, ability at points of entry on borders to d south stop people who want to do us from coming in. the southern border is a unique roblem because of the enormous flows of people across that border including obviously immigrants. you talk about homeland security in the post-9/11 age you have to borders, all of them, air, sea, land. a lot better, but -- is one of those your point.esn't have an end > let me remind everyone that hezbollah has exploited our southern border. >> that is correct. i think it is an important question and this committee

victory lap for its authorship of the safe ports ago.about five years it was a bipartisan law that passed the house and senate and i think, by pressure. i think it predates president obama. but we pushed our borders out. we thought about how important cargo at the ct ships f embarkation on and lock down the ships and have security at the actual ports of entry. but we called it layered secured. -- layered security approach is the approach away well in a ports as variety of ways. there really? appreciation of that. on the physical land borders the southern border i point out that so far as i know terrorists have tried to enter our country through the

than through the southern border. that doesn't mean the southern border doesn't matter. does.rse it but one of the early bad guys astute customs official was able to spot was a was trying to cross the canadian border in washington of e with a rental car full explosives and his intended arget was l.a.x. then in my congressional district so i would remember that and think it to stop him. act but looking at all the borders priority ain a high but don't forget that home grown terrorists already here many of legally are getting radicalized on the internet but in their ve people neighborhoods and we have to keep a focus on that. >> absolutely. give a military perspective on that? perspective i think what our intelligence agencies

terrorism isthwart really notable since 9/11 and agencies ies that the have. i'm convinced in my own mind fencing will of stop a determined terrorist from country.nto this what we have to do is stay focused on them. into their phone conversations. we have to be into their internet. they are know what thinking and we have to stop those kinds of activities before start. so, our intelligence services, yes, the national security agency, the extraordinary work they have been able to do is stopping tical to this. do we need a secure border in of the united rt states? search we do. the he focus and as congresswoman mentioned the ocus we have taken in the layered approach where it begins

overseas is critical for us and a lot of success as a result of it. so the resources necessary for is something ork that you are all doing and i applaud you for it. of the more e interesting discussions on this the bin laden documents from the compound senior al qaeda leaders noted two things i would highlight on the subject. one is trust at the closed and progress the united states had made in making it inside, ficult to get actually hearing it from senior leaders themselves. but also the commitment of exploiting ways to get inside of the homeland. as her it was individuals bin laden had said trying to get visa dy with a mexican that they could smuggle through the southern border or elsewhere. e have had people leave the united states and go to train ith militant groups overseas,

senior levels of syrians, pakistan.n and we have had people come back and been involved in plots and we discovered them. they were all back in the united when they were involved in plots. bombers.oston >> exactly. so this will remain a problem. i think the issue with our has to be border security is good up until the that it has useful intelligence. one of the aspects about this is is where sir why comes back into the puckett -- we are only as good as names we have to and we can pass to folks on border security. one concern i had in talking to folks we have working in and is we don't know all the people over there. if those names don't get on back to border security income come in and out without

being stopped. then fuse those two issues of border security and ntelligence as being crucial and potentially vulnerable if we don't have access to that information. your time.u for mr. chairman i want to point the know tee to an article your enemy al qaeda's grand strategy. i would like to enter that for record. >> without objectives. recognizes my colleague from stocks. texas.m >> i'm no apologist for the national tion's security strategy and i have significant concerns with it. vigor in of focus or the prosecution of the war on terror are not among them. you look at the unprecedented level of both domestic and surveillance that have come to light recently, the rum strikes against terrorist targets who present a direct threat to this country and

enemies of are the our allies that don't present a direct threat. the summer of forces in afghanistan in the first term of t administration and as has been mentioned the killing of bin laden, it is hard to see how ne could reach the conclusion there is a lack of focus or successfully prosecute the war on terror in this administration. general keane's point to se his phrase that the mess in iraq is the result of again his ord the bungling of the administration's negotiators in iraq, i reach a different conclusion. to use that word is the resulte in of our invasion of that country in the first place, the lack of questions to the assumptions we made prior to hat invasion and inability to think through the consequences of that invasion.

hear a lot of military very complex terrorism problems and threats the middle faces in east. i love to hear general keane, lieberman and congresswoman harm man i would unintended consequences of invasions of rone strikes and what those activities do to perhaps increase the threat or we licate the threat that have over there and again to use keane's excellent idea of what that might mean to a beyond a ive strategy military presence or remainder and rces in afghanistan iraq and i guess i would like to lieberman. senator the positivey that

aspect of the obama in nistration's record counterterrorism that you stated i agree with. what i'm saying and i will go back to what i said earlier, in many other ways what the administration is doing is not working. in other words, if we are not moderates, kwrrbyrisyria, if we are doing the same essentially libya, if we are going to let afghanistan basically go the way iraq did and not have an agreement to leave any troops this year, end of the -- we're inviting world in. so not to criticize the positive mr. s you said but to say president there are three more years in which you will be our

commander in chief a lot of what you are now doing in my respectful opinion is simply not our security tect and it is diminishing our credibility in areas of the way outside of the middle east. i talk to people in asia, i was about a month ago and the world is small. pulling become countries that are allies in the middle east they read it personally. they say what is going to happen if china makes a move on me can states?on the united and they think they can. and i appreciate what the obama administration has done including particularly in supporting the homeland security department and elements of national security that were adopted post-9/11. large parts of the foreign policy approach of the

simply ration that are not working. respectfully but i guess to one of the points i was attempting to make do you cknowledge that there is another side to the more that sive robust presence you and general keane have been acknowledging doesn't mean that you dispute ts total or net value but that a presence there also serves al qaeda's interest in being able recruit additional people, drone strikes? to argue against them but to say it is a much more complex picture and more greater or more robust presence doesn't there are mean that not complications? >> of course there are. this is the complication of life a dangerous world. but the bottom line is -- and right when he as said this will go on for a large part of this century we are

a group of violent islamist extremists who represent a distinct minority in islamic world and yet they are fearless, they are an driven killing machine, killing mostly muslims. of things we have done will have a counter reaction. we do nothing, the result will be worse. we have all said it today. none of us is calling for undreds of thousands of troops back in syria, iraq or afghanistan. of can overlearn the lessons the last war and one of them would be to just pull out the consequences of that would be disastrous for our our people. >> i applaud your patience in and a half for two hou hours. ones the junior we ers of our committees so

identify with your patience. >> i also applaud your question. saying think nip is here let's cut and run from the middle east if that is the area talking about, but there nuances to what each of us is saying. here is what i'm saying. am saying we need to continue robust counterterrorism presence in the middle east but that we have to that have troops everywhere. horizon an over the force in some places and stage in areas if we need to in order u.s. interests. i'm saying we need robust set of what wet allow us to do are all talking about which is to learn the plans and of bad guys and prevent and disrupt them from attacking us. we is another thing that need to do. but just take iraq. president obama, as everybody knows, ran on a platform that he

disengage us militarily from iraq. many people in mark in both this.es support there is a democratically elected leader of iraq who is whole d to represent the population, not just the shia population. and that is an issue. john kerry it right maliki to on represent his entire population and provide leadership. similarly in afghanistan, they are not the same country, not set of problems but there is an elected leader. a re hopefully will be reasonably fair election. i'm not optimistic because the last one was so up fair. it is important that the countries themselves exercise leadership as we try to help my final point is at we should ing for me never disengage from that region. the history of every major there, many allies are there, and it is important

cells on the problem. but it is important to the nually revise strategies we use. nd i applaud especially secretary kerry for trying to do that. that is an excellent commentary and i appreciate the it.rtunity to respond to when you look at iraq and fghanistan and you look at troop presence and what happened the there, the fact of the matter is got the right strategy in iraq i'm not going to reargue we not have should gone to rack, i have views on that but the fact is we were and we finally applied a counterinsurgency strategy that to protect the people. and once the people saw that we ere willing to die and die we did protecting them, something we had not done to that point iraqis didn't have the capability to do it the war turned to our favor and at the

the al qaeda had fallen in on iraq because of our presence and that is a true statement. so that was a huge negative o as a result of the invasion of iraq. on iraq because they saw it as a huge defeat ity to render a of the united states and they feared strategically the united iraq into a turn country that had democratic principles and economic can opportunity, something that they ideologically or fundamentally are opposed to. but their message is so harsh and moons are so brutal that the rejected them.es even though they were supporting them three years. have had the success with the surge with the increase of forces applied have ently if we didn't the so-called awakening that tribalace with the sunni leaders who were reject being

he al qaeda because of the force that was put upon them. so we have to understand this they bring to muslims is strident emergency and we can leverage against that. and i can't ---- i have been there 15 or 20 times people themselves, when ou free the people from the harshness and brutality of the talib aliban, we don't have to win their hearts and minds. all we have to do is kill the terrorizing them and just driving their lives into the gutter. once we do that, the people are us.y supportive of so, my point to you is this out there. and we've the moons to deal with

some of it. has to be dealt with with those countries. i think we can help them intellectually to do terms and help them in of kinds government they have and improving those governments and needs of their people. you want to be an ally of the united states these are some of to see.itions we want and also certainly we can go a -- we haveth helping learned a lot about how to deal with this militarily. we forgot the lessons of reason and that is one we have such a problem with this initially in averages and iraq. now we understand how to do this and we can truly help our in the region when they that o use military force this is how, this gets you the est results in using that military force. so there is so much we can do

is learning the lessons that we have learned rom the mistake we have made and applying those lessons and engaged.ng and staying when we pull back the enemy moves forward. what has happened right before our eyes. in libya is t moderate friendly to the united states. ou know what they want from us in to provide assistance to train a proper security force so disarm the militia and be a counterbalance against the radicalist islamists. that is small for us to assist them. payoff is enormous. are we doing that? no. my view.ragic in >> very briefly, i think you finger on an important issue and we have to think about the cost and intervene. how we and there are costs.

my uld say big picture concern is that the rebalancing this earlier -- the rebalancing to asia and in my underfunded support to africa kphrapd that has a ig problem do cost risks, our decisions on syria, future decisions on afghanistan puts in may take where away on risk. but i think you are putting your important issue which is are there costs to if we intervene. the answer is yes. i think we have demonstrated that this are types and numbers can radicalize populations. some of the strikes we have seen killed when they have ed to be moree tend harmful than helpful and there helpful and were saved american lives but you can

a rdo it and assume that doron campaign is the solution. it is an instrument. is not the solution itself. when you look you have it also benefits to he interventi intervention. think we are in a position where we're talking about a much lighter presence overseas, includes not hat just military but treasury, state department and other fficials and one that does increasingly work with applies in some this with us, cases for us. intervention that is worth the cost. i'm sure you are all happy to see me show up. i was watching the hearing from the office. i had a couple of other things. start with dr. jones. in your opening statement you ind of alluded to maybe you need to clarify increased or

continued monitoring or all americans for the sake of making sure that or keep track of these al qaeda folks. my viewpoint it seems to me it would be -- in a resources and in a place where our constitution -- s our liberties guarantees our liberties that the best thing is to target individuals, whatever the matrix or metrics to these places and correspond with these folks, who live in communities that proceed cliffity -- proceed cliffity toward and i want your thoughts on that because to me that seems like the better approach. and also if you could to clarify we e your thoughts on why are doing the opposite, why singleook being at every american for the sake of a few is would be bad actors and

it in from a standpoint of political correctness? this we refuse it face enemy head on and target our energies and resources? clear, i did not support monitoring all americans. i said that ve either. but i did support having a to be able to monitor extremists. is the challenge. this is why this is not a black issue.ite know 't know and we won't everybody that has access on the radicalizes. we won't know everybody that goes overseas. individualsrange of that may radicalize inside the united states, stay here. i would say also as far as i know we have no proof of under even a lone wolf or the patriot act provisions that was ever en used who

radicalized in the united states solely on their own. they had contact with the internet or what have n.s.a. has the ability to monitor every single thing we do then we can and know that. was looking at networks but we did nothing and we are money g all of this watching all of us americans. i guarantee you the only time i places that are unsavory were not because i wanted to take my family on a or myself to afghanistan or middle east where there is a simple war going on. go to those places i think are -- i think they would object to being suspect for their motives and i m that is where we should be focusing our efforts. point out i would you don't have to travel

overseas any more to get the talking about.e so, i think that -- >> but you do correspond somehow with people that are known and to me that is where we hould be focusing our efforts as opposed to this broad approach to every american. i guarantee you the people on my never traveled to these countries and they don't correspond with people these e engaged in things. so, spending resources on them time, energy and resources. >> i get into this. a lot of people ask this. talking hat you are about is the metadata that n.s.a. goes after that. is one excellent way we can get the target. in other words, congress a law here which incidentally though it has been subject to criticism the chinese don't have a law like this or the russians. e actually tried to create a system where there was due process involved. and if you -- as you know, i

think, the met it data -- etadata which is looking at millions of phone calls and e-mails, it is not the content, it is the connections. that is the way they get the target. when they see the connection to go to court to get a court order. think of how crazy that would in china or ody al qaeda ormbers of iran. >> while i agree with you, at we were doing this right and we didn't pick up the oston bombers who were corresponding and making those connections. no system is perfect. but we have stopped a lot of -- american government has stopped a lot of terrorist of theseinst us because f methods of surveillance. say something else. every time i go on the internet

something i'm giving up more information than the n.s.a. has gotten from those millions that ne calls and e-mails they do metadata surveillance of. a ead an article there is service now being sold to stores sort of tells them where eople have been based on their cell phones before they come into the stores. i start to ow when google something or go on ifferent internet sites i'm getting advertising that is based on previous sites i have been at. the private sector knows a every e about almost american than the n.s.a. does you have a hit where it raises suspicion then they have to go to court. so, i think it is really important for the congress to be

and the president will announce a program tomorrow, this system tting which i think has really protected our secured. could just idea, i deplore what edward snowden did. don't think he was a while blower and i think he in many missed many interests. but i applaud the public kaeubtd and where you are coming from is where a lot of americans are coming from. i think you probably understand better than at the do. metadata is just a list of tone names and not accountant. e had all here when waoe of these systems come into ffect and initially the administration, the bush dministration ignored the foreign intelligence surveillance act which when i very ered that i was unhappy about. ut congress amended fisa to

reset the system of checks and balances and there have not been any buses. president's advisory committee has recommended changing section 215 and the storing of this by the federal government. one recommendation is to create an independent agency, a second to push it out and have the phone companies store the data. to president according reports is probably not going to do either because the phone and nies have pushed back don't want to store the data. but just as one person observe country debate in the it would certainly be acceptable to me if we took that pushed the on and data into the private sector and en beginning, adopt some of the recommendations that will american public more comfortable. we need a strong surveillance givem but it needs also to comfort to americans that their privacy is being respected.

i think this debate should lead changes and i hope that the president will be forward friday when he proposes changes. has appreciate that my time long sense expired. appreciate the chairman's indulgen indulgence. wants our policy to be targeted on toes that would do us hall of fame and do as much our god to secure freedoms. for the record when i was a federal prosecutor gone go to the private carriers and it was not amassed warehouse under the n.s.a. apnd i think that wht gives the american performance pause. but i do think it has been legal ve and it is a system. i just want -- i know it is getting late but as the chairman

exercise my prerogative to throw one last uestion out because we have such great expertise on this fastball -- on this panel. has to do with afghanistan. keane, you mentioned the general status forces agreement and we are looking at al qaeda fallujah aking over and large portions of the country and we are faced with the same dalembert with averages. with afghanistan. trying tor karzai is play to his local base and local politics. talk of a zerome option which would result in a 100% withdrawal from the region. me what impact that zero option, if exercised, would

to the our security homeland and in our fight against al qaeda? >> certainly. isten, karzai is a mercurial figure and he frustrates the daylights out of us for the been there at s times. the fact is that he's going to in the spring. the election is around april. from a policy perspective we should not react him although i understand why people would, but beyond karzai. there is going to be a new leader in afghanistan. this withhave to sign the new leader sobeit. because sign it we must. and certainly we need to keep residual forces there. current situation, just so security grasp of the situation, the surge forces were

is ied in the south and it relatively stable there as a result of that. all the forces we wanted. versus 40 of them, 30 and we had to sequentially apply them in the north. the problem is the president pulled them out before we could apply them in the north. themriginal intent was put in the east and put them in the south simultaneously take the aliban down at the same time with surge forces. that situation is relevance till the afghanistans are holding their own. the problem is in the east, we able to generate the combat power we have in the south. as a result of that we are in a g the afghanistans bit of a problem. we know that. we fact of the matter is also conduct an aggressive out erterrorism program afghanistan bases using the do that. and we conduct counterterrorism

afghanistan using special operations forces to do that targets.igh value both of those we need to keep. at risk hose would be seriously if we pulled our forces out. imagine d for me to to, e operations being able as robust as it is, be conducted there without any of our forces and intelligence we are providing for them. swaeuituation in afghanistan as residual forces there are two issues. we are providing enablers for the afghan forces. essentially an enfan industry organization -- infantry organization. need to continue to provide enablers for a few more yours able 2014 until they are to have that capacity themselves intelligence. some of the residual force would

do that. then we need trainers and assistants at the headquarters evel to help shape the afghan military thinking about how to cope with some of the problems. to have t going triggers on the ground but elatively senior officers and n.c.o.'s to help them. that is probably about 15,000 or 20,000 troops. we pull that away those unctions go down the tube and the terrorist operation in pakistan which directly relates o the security of the american people is at risk and gains we have made in afghanistan to date also be at risk by pulling those forces out. agree with you more. is zero option an option? >> i hope not. to me the zero option for afghanistan is the worse option for the united states of america. it does dishonor the men and military he american who fought there, were wounded

there and died there. creates all the danger for the u.s. that general keane .as talked about we have to have some patience here. we set the deadline for making a decision as december of 20 2014, but as general keane has there's going to be an election and don't forget that while ago karzai of the meetings of the leaders on this subject and what did they do? voted to urge him to orckly enter into a security status of forces agreement bilateral with the united states. the afghan people know the them le fate that awaits if we pull out. nd it will be terrible for us not only in terms of being a

terrorists that will strike us again but that is a critically important part of the world. will be important for our security and our prosperity to there american presence for some time to come. afghanistan on for is the worst option for america. >> excellent point. mrs. harman? there can't leave a force without a status of forces agreement. by ink it will be signed karzai or his successor and i think the administration will a force of some size, small force, there. problem doesn't fix the of afghanistan. the government of afghanistan as to show more responsibility for the whole country. and the government of pakistan, impressive early start, has

there, a sponsibility close neighbor of afghanistan, doing more to quell the cells, ce of terrorist terror organizations inside of pakistan. similarly in iraq. aliki has to organ all of iraq -- has to govern all of iraq. so we do have a responsibility and be ct our values helpful in the middle east. i don't think we should retreat. our narrative is not where it needs to be. responsibility to governmentall of our power, soft, smart and hard, terror cells there that might have the capability to attack ur interests or our homeland. this committee has done a good job of staying focused on it. pleased you asked me to participate on the panel. would urge one more time that

on a bipartisan basis you attack show the rest and of the house that bipartisanship especially when the critical interests of the u.s. are at stake. here thank you for being today as well. dr. jones. >> i was recently in afghanistan o my views are formed at least in part by that recent visit and y service there and my time since 2001 there. i think an exit zero option be extremely dangerous for the united states. recent trip i visited several countries in the region. india, adership from from russia, even from pakistan central asian l countries, the assessments from those countries is dire if there american withdrawal from afghanistan. that view is shared by all of and i stan's neighbors think the kinds of discussions

we have had here about a lighter footprint, training, i think are exactly what we are talking bout and what we need for afghanistan. i would just say i have been somewhat impressed by at least security e afghan services' ability it keep key to the center of gravity for the taliban. largely in control by afghanistan and allied forces. there's been some positive development. this is more than just about security. congresswoman harman said this is an afghanistan weernment responsibility but can't leave. we left the region after the withdrawal and paid a major price for that. >> thank you, dr. jones. by saying i do believe we need a footprint after we withdraw in 2014. perhaps we need to wait until the next election to

acommittee that. this is a bipartisan -- i think everyone -- most people on sides of the aisle agree with your assessment on this issue and i know the working hard is toward that end. so, let me close by saying thank all of the witnesses. this has been very insightful panel.istinguished as you know, there will be additional questions in writing from members. that you respond to those. the record will be held open for days. without objection the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next "washington journal" reed wilson looks at

2014 agenda for governors and state legislatures. consumer a. today" reporter talks about the affordability of plans under the law's federal exchanges. then discussion about a federal rogram aimed at providing heating assistance. us. wolfe joins we will take your comments by facebook.itter and that is beginning live at 7:00 c-span.stern on we y at 11:00 a.m. eastern will have remarks from comedian evan sayet.l pundit is a brief portion of the event. has the man stream media it gotten every major story of wrong but e not just

as wrong as wrong can be? let me begin to prove this y pointing out one of the good guys. do you ever get to recommend a brett stevens for the "wall street journal." pieceears back he wrote a that began something close to this. looking n historian back at the contemporary to the sm leading up major events of our lifetime, for clues in that reporting as to the major events to transpire, will have found that reporting useless.een mostly wrong. is he's wrong in that he doesn't go for enough.r that reporting wasn't just

who looked anybody for clues at the time wanting to might come in connection around the world will ave been led to anticipate exactly the opposite of what actually came to be. i want you to think of our news media as our personal agencies.ce here are operatives in the field, reporters sending back dispatches, articles. with information, inside information to make good perform policy. fair enough? look, anybody who trusted the media, abc, nbc, cbs, "time" magazine, "newsweek," times, everybody but fox, i will put fox to the side for a moment. we will talk about fox. but anybody who trusted the as source of ia intelligence not only got useless intelligence but

intelligence that was opposed to the truth. the entire atch event speaking about liberals media at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think without question the act at this point is not keeping pace with where the marketplace is. i a general principle what try to advocate for my own is f.c.c. should do what it can does the contrary we are stuck. i think we have reached the competition we see that the f.k.c. needs to to bring its regulations into the 21st century and reduce the silos require us to treat telephone companies and couple companies and wireless companies even though they compete to provide the same service.

an update would be aoufrpl and i colleagues with our in congress to help make that a success. f.c.c. blican commissioner tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. > up next on c-span "q&a" with doug mills followed by "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a.m. super pac founder teve phillips talks about containing being demographics -- changing demographics and future of u.s. politics. on him andyou opened this week "q&a," new york times photographer doug mills.

>> doug mills, what is the -- doug mills, "new york times" white house photographer. what's the status of the relationship between the photographers now and the president? >> well it's been a rough couple months. there's been a lot of push back from the press obviously trying to get more access from the still photographers. and we had a meeting with jay carney and members of his staff and. it went really well. among the white house correspondents board of association, excuse me on the board of white house correspondent association, we had meeting with jay and laid out all of our concerns. i think we're moving forward. there's progress. they understand our gripes and complaints and obviously they have their own issues and we have had ours. the president wants it fixed.