>> they won't regret it. it are veterans are very capable youngsters during the come with tremendous experience. they have a work ethic and discipline that we like seeing. they won't regret making that hiring decision. i am happy to work with you on how we can make that more compelling. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the me ask just one last question. we know that as a nation we have peoplecrisis in terms of

not being able to access a primary care physician. funding for the national health service corps. the president budget was very generous. it provides death -- debt forgiveness for medical school graduates who are serving in underserved areas. what kinds of programs does the v.a. have in terms of debt forgiveness or whatever it may be to attract primary care physicians to handle the problems that center more and raised? moran raised. >> i will talk specifically about debt forgiveness. we have a retention bonuses and recruitment bonuses. that allowe buyouts people to make a move.

we have quite a bit of flexibility in terms of salary. are competitive and flexible. that could be higher. i will just be blunt. there are not many instances where you need to do that. the cost is not particularly extensive. it can be a great incentive who is carrying up to hundred thousand dollars worth of educational debt coming out of college and medical school to be able to have a good portion of that forgiven. >> the department of defense sends people to medical school and then get x number of years after your life after you graduate. >> they do. we have a program that is not unlike that. the difficulty is you can't

predict where they are going to go. it would be wonderful if he could take someone who is a senior in college -- >> can't you write that into the contract? get anybody to sign then under that contract. with the dod you are going to serve in the military but you have flexibility. to guide people into rural health. you have to write that into the contract. we have not been able to contract -- a copper set. can i mention just one more thing it? that is the used -- use of advanced practice nurses. they have helped keep liberal going. we have a provider that visits that area. as the only place in kansas where we are having trouble.

we will continue to work. are just shocked about liberal, kansas. >> they cannot get that through their heads. i did not realize that you were also involved in another committee. this is a huge problem. this is not just with the v.a.. regardless of where anybody is out of the health care will, we are going to have more people in the system. so many of the providers are our age. it is something we need to look at. we can work hard and work hard on our making sure the veterans have the benefits that were promised. if you can't find anybody to provide the care, it really is a big thing. maybe that is something that at some point we could have a hearing about. >> i think that is a good idea.

>> this is not just a v.a. thing. >> this is something that if we are going to be short five years from now, you cannot decide three years from now that you're going to do it. brief follow-up question mar? >> when is he going to receive the port? we could then see the results. that your response to the question about all the array of things that we have to offer physicians, it may be a long list but it does not seem sufficient. i have asked this in every hearing. what are you missing? i've never had an answer that we

have examined this that does not go away. would it be additional pay or loan forgiveness. chairman'swer to the question, these are all the things that we have. i appreciate knowing that. i would remind you that it does not seem to solve the problem. >> let me suggest this. we will get you guys back. >> when could we receive a report? i just asked that question and he said shortly. i would imagine i would get it before the sun sets today. [laughter] that, i want to thank all of the panel for spending over two hours with us. we thank you for your thoughtful

answers in these difficult times, we are proud of the work that you're doing. this hearing is adjourned. >> in his address, as obama talked about strengthening overtime protection. address talks about the affordable care act.

>> hi, everybody. in this year of action, i'm doing everything i can, with or without congress, to expand opportunity for more americans. this week, i ordered a review of our nation's overtime rules, to give more americans the chance to earn the overtime pay they've worked for. here's why this matters. our businesses have created 8.7 million new jobs over the past four years. but in many ways, the trends that have battered the middle class for decades have grown even starker. while those at the top are doing better than ever, average wages have barely budged. too many americans are working harder than ever just to keep up. we've got to build an economy that works for everybody, not just a fortunate few. we know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out, when growth is more widely shared. so we've got to restore opportunity for all -- the idea that with hard work and responsibility, you can get ahead. now, for more than 75 years, the 40-hour workweek and the overtime protections that come

with it have helped countless workers climb the ladder of success. but today, an overtime exception originally meant for highly-paid employees now applies to workers who earn as little as $23,660 a year. it doesn't matter if you do mostly physical labor, or if you work 50, 60, even 70 hours a week. your employer may not have to pay you a single extra dime. in some cases, this rule makes it possible for workers earning a salary to actually be paid less than the minimum wage. and it means that business owners who treat their employees fairly can be undercut by competitors who don't. that's not right. so we're going to update those overtime rules to restore that basic principle that if you have to work more, you should be able to earn more. and we'll do it by consulting workers and businesses, and and simplifying the system so it's easier for everyone. americans have spent too long

working more and getting less in return. so wherever and whenever i can make sure that our economy rewards hard work and responsibility, that's what i'm going to do. because what every american wants is a paycheck that lets them support their families, know a little economic security, and pass down some hope and optimism to their kids. that's something worth fighting for. and i'll keep fighting for it as long as i'm president. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> good morning. my name is bill johnson, and i'm proud to represent eastern and southeastern ohio in the house of representatives. four years ago today, president obama came to our state and promised our seniors that his health care law would protect their benefits. he said this -- "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. i don't want to interfere with people's relationships between

them and their doctors." now, the reality is, that not only is the president's health care law interfering with these relationships, it's ending them altogether. because of obamacare, many seniors enrolled in the popular medicare advantage program are paying higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. many are losing access to their physicians. and many more will, unless the president takes action. last month, republican leaders wrote a letter to the president asking him to develop a plan to deal with these problems. nothing was done. in our weekly address, we urged him to listen to stories of seniors in florida paying more money for fewer choices, less access, and far less peace of mind. still nothing. just this week, a bipartisan coalition of more than 200 members of the house and senate came together to press the obama

administration on this issue. because this transcends politics. this is about keeping the promises we make to the american and people. in january, i sat down with a group of local doctors to talk about all this. one told me that many seniors in our area who need to see a specialist will now have to drive up to cleveland or pittsburgh to receive care. another cited hundreds of cases in which patients were blindsided by these changes. and last month, i received a note from a cancer survivor in poland, ohio who said that, a because of the health care law, she and her husband are losing the eye doctor they've been going to for nearly 30 you years. here's what she had to say. we have always taken care of ourselves. we had four children, took care of their education, and never asked for handouts. in now, we are older, and we

have to be concerned about not having the doctors and services we like and will need. a remember how the president said he didn't want to interfere and in these relationships? more than 794,000 seniors in ohio rely on medicare advantage. a that's hundreds of thousands of broken promises in waiting in just one state. older americans deserve better. they deserve the benefits they were promised. if the president won't help us repeal this law in its entirety, he ought to step up here, do the right thing, and protect our seniors. and he ought to do this soon. and he is in him and

discussed afghanistan. he reviewed trish troop levels in afghanistan. he talked about the need of a bilateral agreement between the u.s. and afghanistan. this is one hour and 45 minutes.

[no audio] >> it would help if we aimed at finishing those sessions by about 4:00. a littleable to finish earlier or conceivably a little later. i might begin by asking at a strategic level, how successful the operation afghanistan has been it? it has achieved its initial

and immediate objective of degrading the ability of international terrorism to operate from afghanistan. in the long sense degraded the capability of al qaeda in afghanistan. it is a fraction of its former presence. it is created the conditions in something approximating to our view of what a functioning civil governance means. the government is providing basic public services to its population and providing transport and infrastructure and security.

there is a functioning justice system. creationerseen the from scratch of the afghan security forces where none existed before. capableand broadly organization which will be able insurgencyhe is after combat presence is lifted. swath ofbroad territory, it has achieved very considerable results. >> thank you. detail of into the those questions. could you describe your view afghanistan,ct in

in regard to the elections? >> we are in electioneering mode at the moment. everything that everybody does and says has to be viewed to the prism of of elections. signature forget the achievement that that represents. this country was once considered ungovernable. it is now conducting democratic elections with a field of representing all the regions and ethnicities in the country. sometimes the rhetoric goes beyond what we might have wished in some of the messaging that is coming from some of the players and has not

been entirely helpful. think it will do providing security? discussed that recently. the election will be able to be conducted. they will be able to ensure that. the vast majority of polling stations will be able to function. as afghany authorities are predicting will be able to function, nonetheless the vast majority of polling stations. i think the focus needs to be on ensuring that the zombie polling stations are not created. is thatling station going to be able to function, it

is to be recognized and it needs to be moved or closed down. >> you have some evidence that might happen? >> it may have happened in the past. if there is going to be any electoral mischief, it will likely be around of polling station. how do you think the election will play with regard to our broader operations? how will it impact british forces? firstly, the election appears to be a significant factor in the current inability to complete the bsa.

the bilateral security agreement between the united states and the islamic republic of afghanistan. and the nato forces agreement. to that extent, it has created uncertainty which is deeply unhelpful. a clearlection reduces first-round result, then we would be hopeful. that thebe hopeful bilateral security agreement would rapidly be completed. overallct on our position and drawdown would be relatively minimal. if the first round of the election is inconclusive and we are finding ourselves over the summer watching a prolonged election,nd of the

with the bsa continuing to remain unsigned, we will have a much greater impact. ourhe short term, in deployments and posture and are drawdown and the longer-term on assuming is able to do the bsa does get ratified. evidence that on their side they have got an outline plan of what they would require? something they could execute quickly? the bsa -- we're still on the elections

at the moment. what are the prospects in your mind of the elections being free and fair and are they being properly observed by independent observers? >> the afghan electoral commission will be overseeing them. members of the committee will independent the commission is. free and fair, these are relative terms in elections. our perception is each round of elections in afghanistan is probably better than the previous one. we would hope the elections this

year will be an advance on the previous residential election. we are heading in the right direction. the bilateral security , presumably we are watching. has this become a hotly contested issue among candidates? that is a question about the elections. candidateding according to local polling has generally indicated that they would expect to sign up a bilateral security agreement. planning a monk nato and elsewhere.

the question of surround the timing. there is a two round election, that is the critical challenge. the report this morning is being transparent and inclusive. should we be standing back and expecting free and fair and expecting that transparency is credible? startings a very good point. realistic,have to be not just in afghanistan but whats a swath of the world the democratic process can

deliver. what the cultural norms in the society are. this is organized in a very different way. --hink transparency includes and inclusive this is a very good starting point. that thereay we know are plans to assassinate a candidate. are we leaving that to this a private security? >> i think i am right in saying police lead on this issue. we will provide some level of enablement in terms of intelligence and material. they are the leader on it. it is very important in these elections that the security

enablement of the election and the protection of the candidates is seen to be delivered by the afghan forces. it would present a terrible picture if the candidates were being protected by foreign troops. probably not a winner. >> probably not terribly secure. it of been optimistic so far. been optimistic so far. hope this will work. prospects of a sustainable peace settlement? >> there will be significant

elements of the taliban and re-insurgency who are willing to make a compromise with the existing a government of afghanistan. toby some elements who are not. it just as in our own reconciliation in northern ireland, you have to separate the ones who want to come in a presence. the presence of foreign troops is a very sensitive issue for those who support the insurgency. mission ismbat and the presidential elections are completed, i would expect for that to be another window of opportunity for the reconciliation led by afghans

and between afghans. i don't believe there will be a long-term sustainable future for afghanistan that does not involve some sort of compromise between the taliban and and the rest of afghan society. do you think those discussions should be between the after -- taliban and the current government? or pakistan? what is the role of pakistan in achieving long-term stability? >> at the very least, we need in atan to acquiesce long-term reconciliation.

because of its control of the border areas and areas of harbor those who transit into afghanistan for nefarious purposes, pakistan can destabilize and undermined. tothe very least, it needs acquiesce to the authorities. a reconciliation would be greatly facilitated by the active engagement of the pakistan authorities and the trilateral authority. designed to create an atmosphere on both sides of the afghan and pakistan border. that is a realization there is service of preventing

the passage of insurgents and terrorists across the border in both directions. [indiscernible] key will that be? don't claim to be an expert. this is a very important part of the overall pakistani structure. isi would make itself the guardian of pakistan. this is a trilateral process. pakistaniupport

acceptance of the view that pakistan's interest is best served by stability in afghanistan. instances been those that pakistan's interests have been served by instability. that can't the helpful. they need to develop their own security. important is it going to be for pakistan to really and seriously deal with their own to provide to refuse safe haven for the afghan taliban ? >> these are two separate organizations. how the government chooses to

engage with the pakistani taliban and in the current approach would probably best be described as a mixture of carrot and stick. it is an issue for them. the pakistanithat our finding a safe haven on the afghanistan of the border, it must be clear the authorities should coordinate and control the ability of afghan taliban and and a network to operate on the pakistani side of the border. it would be reasonable to inspect those moves to be reciprocated by the afghan authorities to the benefit of both entries. it is that line of logic that we are seeking to persuade the

pakistanis. i think we are making progress for pakistaniar security. they are now seeing the insurgent terrorist threat to the pakistani state as a pure strategic threat than the from.ional threats some of the discussions, we saw attempts by the pakistanis themselves to negotiate with the pakistani taliban and. they have their own a peace settlement in their own country.

that is not easy to do. due to our role in it, one of thequestions that discussion needs to be among the people of the government's and what they are going to be in 20323. they're going to see the stabilization. do, whatof what we can is going to happen in terms of the cross-border security? are we going to be able to contribute to that in terms of what comes after? they have made quite good progress on the ground.

we will continue with the trilateral process. the prime minister is committed to it. both the afghans and the pakistanis technology that we have a unique position here. this is in our relationship with both countries. we can perform this role and we are very clear that as long as we're in that unique position, we have an obligation to try and do it. explain as to what may be the case? could we say that the coordination is a constructive process and can take place? decided?yet to be [indiscernible]

>> in terms of cross-border control centers, we have said that we are going to have afghanistan. his is one of the areas that we for a practical involvement in? it is my intention to have a u.k. element. we actually believe the government wants that. help. itination will certainly ought to. we will see what happens after that. about.re talking

are talking about headquarters. hq. i want to ask one question about pakistan. it seems to me that this is one of the most important regions of the world. significant links to this country. what happens in pakistan is important to this country. if we withdraw troops from afghanistan, might that produced the focus of attention to pakistan? what canis that risk, we do to guard against it? >> i don't think there is that risk. the importance of pakistan in

system is largely driven by the perceived threat to the u.k. from terrorism emanating from tribal areas in northeast pakistan. interest.e key self we are also very clear that the successful development of pakistan as a state and an economy is important to us because of the huge links we u.k..hrough the inre is nothing of a risk focus on pakistan other than to say that of course emerging dilute theyria sadly

unipolar focus. if you asked this question 18 months ago, i would say without has a tatian that the greatest threat of terrorism to the u.k. between the threats we see in syria and the threats in the traditional areas. councilational security says from the point of view of threats. maybe there is an opportunity for the united kingdom to play a part in the dialogue with pakistan in relation to india. we have a good friendships with both of those countries. the national security council is very much engaged in looking at threats to the homeland. interesting question.

should the u.k. play a proactive role in bringing about reconciliation between india and pakistan? there are some very encouraging currentnce the pakistani government took office. the fact that there are elections currently ongoing in india means that process is on hold until after the indian elections. we would always want to do everything we could to support and encourage dialogue between two such important and nuclear countries. we would be cautious about expecting that we can lay a very significant role. it is a two countries that will have to work together to make this work.

have good relations ath both countries, we have deep-rooted relationship in pakistan. our relationships with the indians are a different type. it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could play a in bringing india and pakistan to the table together. >> thank you. had to describe the security system? in some districts, are the most kinetic of the country. i have been for a long time now.

this is still a dangerous place. time, the situation has become much more secure. much more stable. polling of the population shows that people feel much safer now. enemymber of omission -- initiations is down. terms, it is still a dangerous part of the country compared to others. [indiscernible] >> the number of army personnel higher.s 49%

they were not in the lead of security. do you have the actual numbers of killed? 2012, it was just under 1300. and then 2013? data.e got the months, thetwo attrition rate is 2.2% q. context, thes in , thistage of the forces is broadly comparable than those

killed in action. whether these stories about the security forces patrolling jointly. is there any evidence of that? [indiscernible] >> i think i've said in my statement in january, the afghan commanders and political leaders do not recognize any joint patrols. ensure taken steps to

that nothing could be misinterpreted with joint arrangements on the ground up. anything that looks as though it might be have occurred, have taken action to stop them. >> it did happen then? >> i don't know. >> isn't it took actions to stop it. commanders,nior there is no senior-level condoning or supporting anything of this kind. junior commanders are being made aware that they must not do anything which might be construed or misrepresented as any kind of joint patrolling behavior. action is being taken to ensure that. there is no definitive

answer. construed, what could be construed as joint patrol between insurgents and afghan security forces. >> there are no british forces regularly patrolling. you.reporting to we have the response of senior afghans to the challenge. it has been reported that something that looks like a joint patrol may have occurred. the answer is we don't condone it and we won't allow it. we will give them clear instructions not to do it. it is been investigated? they did check it out? >> i know they have

investigated. as far as i'm aware there was no evidence. the senior afghan authorities are not condone it. -- condone it. constructions so that nothing they can be construed that way. i am not there. i am here. i have seen no evidence. in terms of the security of security, when do you believe or do you have any evidence that might want to settle their actions. it looks like the americans and british are driven out.

that might actually be a part of the next nine months. can -- confident that can be dealt with? >> they might want to. i'm sure they might want to. to they have the capability? i think we think they are doing what they can. there are repeated reports of edicts telling people to increase the pressure. the evidence is they have not been able to do that. is the dn expect capabilities that the taliban beingas is focused toward destructive of the election process. once the elections are out of the way, we can expect the force of this to be directed back at the forces.

in terms of your confidence, post-2014nfident that we won't see a significant increase in the area of taliban insurgency? i think i've said to this committee and in the house before, the afghans will have a different set of priorities and a different approach to doing their business. what is strategically important will be different from ours. they may deploy their resources differently and applied pressure in places the we have regarded being areas we wanted to spend resources. they may focus less on some

areas the we sought to hold. pattern on thee ground will not change. i can be confident the basal be done in a different way. the a range of outcomes and central expectations are that they will hold of the insurgency in check but do it in a different way. the pattern on the ground will be broadly set with the government controlling the population centers and economic infrastructure. that they't believe will put as much effort into controlling the certain parts question ma?

the afghan army are in it for the long haul. this indicates that as far as they're concerned they are holding that territory. by 2014, they would be making duty choices. arehe complications economically important. this is an illegal threat which involves huge amounts of money. we are dealing with a complex criminal mafia, if you like. the way in which they deal with cashcomplex interaction of

generating -- criminal activity will be different. you're quite right. [indiscernible] picture and the caption said not yet over. could you tell us how you did that. >> don't believe everything you read. [indiscernible]

>> it depends on what you mean by patrolling or joint patrolling. the army of the taliban and are holding a dangerous elixir dangerous to me. know? a we -- how do we know? this is an area that has all sorts of criminal elements. >> if you're clear this is something that should be happening -- >> this shouldn't happen. >> it doesn't establish the baseline. if it did happen, -- >> the problem is this was

reported that we do not control. there is no british residents on the ground. because of the reports that we received, we took it up with the authorities and it was investigated. the conclusion was that they could not be sure that this happened. if it did happen, wasn't localized? is -- wek the point to be honest,d -- afghanistan is not written or scotland. we are talking about a much more confused situation on the ground at the local level. we focused on getting the assurance that there is no endorsement of this kind of activity.

story firstderful broke, the spin that was put on it was the afghans were doing deals with the taliban. we needed to be reassured that that was not the case. that there was no endorsement. we got that reassurance. if they were identified and the work would go out to commanders that there would be no tolerance. i have heard nothing further reported of anything that was interpreted by people as any kind of joint patrolling or local compromise.

what is the response to this? do we pick up the phone and asked the daily mirror to resist from running stories. you could not prove that it did not happen. you hoped that it didn't. >> i have to be clear. alleged haveinto happened in a region where there is no british responsibility. so many have been wounded there. you are saying it is not our responsibility. >> we have taken it up with the afghan authorities. we have gotten the assurances that we wanted.

trying to go back in history in afghanistan to establish what happened on a certain day in the past, you have been there and you know what it is like. this is not checking the record and the local police station. you're confident it is not happening today? >> i have not heard any reports of anything that is a possible recurrence. i think we want to move on to the security agreement. i wasto declare, wondering what that uncertainty

has to our involvement and future commitments. >> at the moment, it is not having any direct impact. nobody likes uncertainty. our presence post-2014 is well-defined. the impact on us at the moment is limited. where the impact is more significant is on those nations that are proposing to provide fruit for the model of operations. the scenario is inconclusive.

president emerging until as late as september, that presents real challenges. , as we know, were not signed. they would have a very short period of time to get significant numbers of troops out of the country. >> i think you said you are fairly confident that it was not the first time, however the could youwould be, maybe enlighten us why you feel so confident about what happened? all, there is a broad degree of consensus in afghanistan around this security agreement. lasts been endorsed november, october-november. and because all of the leading

presidential candidates have indicated that they think it is in afghanistan's interest to sign it. >> you remain confident because you believe the communications or signage if elected -- >> the one key assumption of all signedis that it will be , that we recognize that is not a certainty. that is a central planning assumption, but of course we are also planning for other outcomes. >> you know the history of afghanistan.

and then in five or six years, perhaps we have a whole new insurgency situation. what you think in terms of providing the supports, how do we see this involved in supporting afghanistan for it to remain stable. >> and history, and as funding. >> i'm talking about resources. thehe commitment to find maintenance after 2014 into can -- and to continue to provide so long aslp -- those commitments remain in place, so long as there is a willingness by the international security to support the afghan government, they would be able to maintain. that would depend on what happens. look, if there is continued progress in afghanistan, obviously it is reconciliation or the beginning of

reconciliation. they would be a strong willingness on the part of the international community to support that. if there is progress in developing the afghan economy, if there is continued progress in developing human rights, particularly there is no regressive tendency in relation endomen's rights after the of 2014, all of these things make it more likely that the international community will be willing and able to continue its involvement in afghanistan. clearly a failure by the afghans to give up to the commitments that they have made to the international commitment -- community will make it more difficult. >> to those commitments include respecting and offering the rights to women? >> they do. as guaranteed by the constitution. and doesn't rails have any further questions about the bilateral security?

>> i have one or two if nobody else does. the bilateral security group feels bilateral. andeen the united states the afghan government. in thinking -- let's be absolutely clear about this -- if there is no bilateral security agreement between those two countries, then there will be no academy held by the british worse is, is that right? >> there will be no british forces on the ground in afghanistan if there is no security agreement. >> ok. how soon would you expect decisions to be made about that? the decisions on the bilateral security agreement go forward, how soon would you expect that to be a complete pullingof the plug --

of the plug of all british forces on the ground? >> if i may, i think the question is probably -- what is the latest state at which we could -- how longer we wait for a bsa before we have to assume there will not be one? >> much better. why don't you come and join us? [laughter] moving feast. it is something that the military are very focused on and clearly as we have run into this current challenge with the current resident making it look increasingly unlikely that he will sign a bsa before the election, military has gone into to push back wherever possible, the point at which we have to assume there will not be a bsa. if you don't want, chairman, i think i would want to not be definitelyt we are

be on the point where we think the latest real estate -- realistic time for a victor emerging from a two-stage presidential election process, which is probably sometime in september. >> ok, so we have a bilateral security agreement. how soon after that what a status of forces agreement between me afghan government and the remainder happened? >> i think something between one man and one week we would expect -- prettyffectively much simultaneous. >> is the wording of that already agreed between the government of eskimo fan and i the government of afghanistan and the forces? >> would it be right to think if there were any significant disparities between a bilateral

security agreement and the force agreements, that would be a game changer? >> no. i think the bilateral security agreement covers territory that the status of forces agreement will not cover. they will be seeking permission to do is things that nato forces will not want to do, so the united states will continue to have a u.s. only mission in afghanistan alongside its contribution to resolute support after the 31st of december, 2014, and they will be permission for those activities. >> would the indemnities for british forces be as strong as the indemnities for united states forces? >> yes because it will not be so much indemnities as specific seating of jurisdiction over

british forces to the nato or british authorities. >> the status of forces agreement -- currently we have a -- this is part of my question. the original order that came out, the u.s. resolution come if he would have the bilateral agreement with the -- that is their issue. and the nato agreement will follow. it will be the end legally in terms of law. the coalition is broader than nato. >> it is. with mye discussion

australian counterpart yesterday and he confirms that australia will inspect to be -- will expect to be significant to the nato forces agreement, somewhere will be available to the nato partner nations as well. >> [inaudible] british bilateral as well? >> i do not believe we have a bilateral agreement. everything that we require is included in the resolution. >> that is very helpful. thank you. justyping of what you described, seems to take us to the countries that have

submitted forces have bespoke element of it. the significance of all of this for the nato summit is very important, is it not? >> it is. and afghanistan will be clearly a very important subject at the nato summit. outcome ofng on the the presidential election and the progress in completing the bsa -- that will of course suck the tone for the nato summit. set the tone for the nato summit. president obama, when he spoke a few weeks ago about the delay in completing the bsa, also said very importantly, i think, the longer it is delayed, the smaller the number of u.s. troops available is likely to be . and that in itself has an impact

. so there is a possible outcome, which is not the zero option with no bsa, but a bsa concluded so late that the number of troops committed by the united states effectively dictates an alternative posture to the force. but that would raise some questions with some of the intending troop-contributing countries who are very focused on providing one of the spokes, germany and italy in particular. >> right. and in the whole question of future interventions, including nato -- >> you spoke of september being an end date. but president karzai now -- does he intend

staying on if they handover takes place, possibly as late as november? that duality, if afghanistan,ning as adding to the difficulty of actually getting any agreement done? legality?s the >> i am not an expert on the afghan constitution, but i am not aware of a provision for any transitional handholding role for the ex-president. clearly, to answer your question self-evidently, if there were two people sleeping -- in

seeking to exercise simultaneously, that would only public ap situation, but i am not aware of any provision that would make that legal. i have no doubt that president karzai sees himself as having some figurehead role in the nation. beyond the presidential election, and we will expect to continue to be a figure of some considerable, and floor mall -- informal influence. >> [inaudible] >> as you will know, the proper figures have been disappointing in the most recent -- disappointing from the point of view county nonprofits, not rom the point ofr m view of -- so we have to a the -- isthis, that

alive and well in afghanistan. >> is it fair to say that this part of the mission was well-intentioned but have actually turned out to be an abject failure? >> item i think i would describe it as an abject failure. progress has been made, but in the last year, there were of thecs in erosion crops. clearly there have been different demands for the focus , and if there is a resolution for the insurgency, as some kind of reconciliation in afghanistan, it will be easier then to tackle the copy problem. >> from a technical level, is there anything you can clinch

towards to say that it would be worse? >> i think it could be worse. >> in what way? >> there is now an afghan constitution capable of doing this on their own way. i think the main problem is that there are no -- and so if you are an assigned to combat and you seek to remove their livelihood, then you're simply having to move on the insurgency, slightly give a sequence. there is a separation going on, and we provide support to the afghan-led counter narcotics operations. clearly, things would be worse if there were not a counter narcotics operations. >> you provide the weapons, but

you did not -- >> clearly we were. >> let me see what evidence. and the only evidence that i think we can provide is around the results of counter narcotic detentions,rests, crop destruction. i am not sure what the classification of that material. let me look and see what we can provide. i am not arguing that this is .erfect there is too much poppy being grown, there is too much poppy surviving. it seems to me at the level of counter narcotics activity must be making a positive impact from what we see as a far worse problem. >> thank you. the u.s. inspector general for afghan reconstruction has made forlear that the potential

afghanistan to fall into the state of becoming a narco state could undo all of the progress that has been made on these other issues. is that an assessment that you accept? >> i don't want to criticize someone who probably did much more -- >> sure. >> the conflict relationship between criminal activity and political insurgency activity in afghanistan, and clearly the availability of large sums of money, which require protection and patronage to be realized, all of that creates the risk of a state being on the market. there you will understand is a picture where you have said in this session that the afghans .- as may be different

that is maybe less so. you have admitted to this being at best disappointing and not yet being able to provide evidence of any level of success. have the experts on the ground saying this will fail? that is a pretty bleak picture. risk.is a >> there is a risk and that is self-evident to be true. there are lots of risks and afghanistan. one of the things in the national community i think will is if theyar upon financially support the afghan government, they will expect that to pursue a robust counter narcotic structure, yes. it is not going well at the moment -- >> is not going well at the moment. it is going to get worse.

you say you are optimistic for the future. the afghans will set their own priority. be part for us as donors to shape the priority. >> ok. thank you. >> do you think the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops will make it easier or more difficult for the afghan government to get on top of the narcotics problem? >> the narrative of course has been flirting with the forces. once we're gone, that narrative disappears, and it is much more difficult for them to carry that against the government. so i hope we will see a drop in support, the taliban across the

country. provide support and enablement to the specialist afghan units that are part of a narcotics role without becoming, of illegal evidence traffic that are becoming increasingly effective. and we will hope that they will be able to by the time we leave, otherwise the skills and the insurance necessary to carry on -- beour mission would doomed as a result. hundreds of thousands of years the way that we used to is daft. by some magic, we would napalm

-- or thailand or somewhere else. we reduce the number of people taking over. what are the motivations for the investors? >> i think that is a slightly different question, and that they reference to heroin in south london. an expert onot that, but most of the poppy is grown outside of the legally irrigated areas. there is therefore an irrigation infrastructure of which the crop is dependent. it is not just about destroying crops -- it is about disrupting the infrastructure, the support.

i suspect that makes it a slightly more manageable challenge than the countries where irrigation is natural and the destruction of the actual crop itself is required on an annual basis. >> irrigation era structure -- irrigation infrastructure -- poppy fields right up to the afghanistan'shat will cut their way through, then there is the base. so we are sending the mixed messages given our lead on eradication of poppies, would you not agree, and allowing poppy fields to grow right up to the very edge of our base? >> i think we have already acknowledged with the benefit of hindsight allowing any kind of

cover, whether the settlement, crops up to the fence is not good practice and they were eradicated. a -- on hoppehave eradication. >> try to get rid of it as quickly as possible. the government -- it is the provincial government's lead and something he takes a great interest in. i have discussed it directly with him. he has produced his own plan for eradication or at least reduction in the province. >> on a scale of one to 10, one being horrible and 10 being fantastic, how do you think the success has been in actually ensuring security in

afghanistan? >> i think it has been pretty good. and they're getting better. may, probablyf i asking my opinion is not the best test. the best test is to look at the citizens,ta of afghan particularly those in hellman. i think something like 70% of afghans feel safe going out in the daytime. se do. hellman he >> on the ground, this occurred he forces are, i think, from what we probably expect them to because they are gaining have -- not just with ground operations but when you look at the tempo of operations

that they're running up to shape saythe elections, came to that this surpassed even what he had expected to see. doing an excellent job. ,n terms of the polling, 88% , 88%, andhe anp another at 72%, so they are going in the right direction. >> and leading 97% of all operations, which is quite significant. >> can you tell me how you would place on a scale of one to 10? >> i think i would place it at about a seven at the moment. >> what are the challenges ?hey're going to face dec

>> [inaudible] [laughter] >> to challenges. one is that the attrition rates are too high. ,f you look at the army 170,000, their slightly over that, but it should be 16% attrition rate. that is far too high. has 32%, and army 32% is too high. we have talked about that. it is the problem with taking the call over the government, and people working very hard on that. and the other area, which i think that if the problem with that it was going to be, ,ncluding the key enabler areas for example, surveillance, medical, logistics.

but we had expected to maintain a brigade and upper hellman until we left. i think i've said this last thing as well, what we have learned is that afghans operating in afghanistan speak the language. there is a seductive -- there's a sophisticated plan that we ourselves use. -- that allows them to do operations in a different way. one to is my scale of 10, and i will ask you both, how confident do you feel that they will be able to maintain security after we have left? how scale of one to 10, confident are you? >> as i have artie said, i think

where it is now can be misleading, can be a slightly misleading western because they may choose a different program from the one they are currently there is a move to reconciliation, that may change the posture and the profile yet again, but i think in the short term, looking at 2015, i would feel confident 7 to 8 your scale, that they will be able to maintain security. clearly the further out we go, the lower the confidence must become because there are more unknowns. but in the period immediately after our withdrawal, i would expect them to be able to continue to deliver security. much of it is delivered now.

>> [inaudible] >> you asked about level of confidence, another capacity. i have better insight into what the situation is like january 2015 then i do january 2016, so my level of confidence must decline about anything over time simply because i cannot see into the future, but looking at the near-term, there is no sense, and i get this for much from talking to our military colleagues, there is no sense that there is any risk of a cliff edge when we complete our combat mission. there will be a relatively smooth transition. they will do things generally, as general everard said. >> you would agree with that? >> i will absolutely agree with that. ithink we will see tests, but

think they've shown the resilience to overcome those. and i think we will see a level of security. you can see it against the taliban, you can see they are nervous. they can never match this army. from have taken evidence other people, particular ambassadors to afghanistan. >> previous ambassadors. >> yes. former ambassadors. placed the possibility of the civil war extremely high. do we take it that you are confident that there will not be dissent into civil war? >> i personally would not expect -- there's already a robust insurgency. i do not see anything that would indicate that the insurgency

would be able to move that up to civil war. they will have lost the recruiting sergeants of troops, which has been important for them. we already believe they are throwing everything they have got at this. so they've got no reserve as far as we can see. and their message becomes more difficult to deliver when they are inviting insurgencies against afghan forces under the control of the democratically elected afghan government, so no, i do not see that being the outcome. >> you commented about the improvements of the port in coverof speculation and -- of evacuation and cover.

what is the civilian government capacity to maintain the key pay, becausech is of the period of last year when the afghan police were not paid for two months? bureaucracy.have a >> the afghan defense -- about the attrition, rates and the central core of leadership. brigade, andion the other one was simple administration and ensuring they have the pay at the right time. i am very assured that at the highest levels at the afghan government, they recognize soldiers will continue to soldier, and i can be an

achilles' heel. so i'm confident they will fix this. i do think the crux of the afghan security forces has been better than anybody would imagine over the course of the months.ht >> very true. view, wems of your went to afghanistan, sebastian, there,o got to see -- and vehicles hit by ied's, etc. -- also, support of the

could you update us in terms of what is happening? it is quite important. key enablers of the afghan forces. >> again, i think it has come back to what's on paper in terms of what we have provided, what the afghans are providing in terms of what we will call mobile protective vehicles. they are much more static in the .ay they operate they work out is often out of what we call technicals and then control. it is entirely against their instinct to sit in metal boxes and drive out the way we do. so i think there is a fear from them, that they want the same mechanism, technical protection that we have. toecause they will be able maintain and b because they are

amongst the population. i would have to put the what on paper.hem 2017, the americans will continue to provide. >> certainly on a more day today. >> yes. the forces agreement across -- i am sorry. as my colleague just said, i ,poke to people at the hospital they were getting campaign medals, they had just come back. we get the hell they were building the afghan hospital there. general -- their

capability is leaping forward, and they're cutting back. is thestion really is sustainability of that process after the election. i just wonder in terms of the general politics and how the playsment of afghanistan out, monitoring in terms of their development elsewhere. what arrangements are you making to try to help ensure the sustainability of this country is maintained? ,> well, you are quite right the afghans are building these regional military hospitals, but the key to making them sustainable will be being able to attract insurgents to go into

a tour of duty, and the afghans recognize that as a challenge. what we're doing, what we can do and will continue to do is provide advice, mentoring and support, at the ministry level, and we expect to insert british advisers into a number of ministries, tod help them to address some of the strategic questions and to work out how to manage some of these challenges. we can't do it for them. >> a lot of the medical stuff is --vided by growth will slow by them. it is a military hospital -- >> the afghans don't have, as far as i'm aware, a military reserve. we have no plans to deploy

thecal reservists into regional facility hospitals. these are afghan facilities. they are already operating into the higher-level's than we expected. we had a week recently where we injuries in the hospital, and they were all able to be treated in the afghan military hospital. that is a major step forward, and the afghans will continue to make progress, but we cannot do it for them. the process of the last two years of deciding to challenge the afghans to do things themselves has been characterized throughout by people saying are we sure we can do this, are we sure we should leave them, are they up to it? and in every case, they have demonstrated that they are. sometimes they are prepared to take a bit of a hit in the transition, but they are determined to do these things

themselves, and in every case, whatever hick up there may have it forthey are not doing th themselves. the same will be true for supplying medical support for the deployed forces. >> is there a level of support by afghan ied equipment? it is an item that has come up again and again. calledof our programs is training.d the ideal equipment that we have will probably not be sustained after afghan league, and they do have an alternative, but there is a program. [inaudible]

we will have to go to something less capable then. the operation clearing a number of vehicles, and they ied's.d, 250 the afghans form a special team using dogs that we had given in-laws part two there, parts and -- to their counterparts. --using dogs for clearance >> i think it shows the level of capability already. equipment --ve specialsing it of our equipment. >> no support from us. perspective,be be that we will gift equipment, equipment which has been contractors at

great cost is not sustainable for the afghans. >> moving onto withdrawal. the process of withdrawal, we had of course before, some movement of containment, the number, the volume. the notion of doing this with our allies, they have said -- and also if you could talk about their method of withdrawal. the fact that some vehicles are being taken into the middle eastern area and won't necessarily come by to the u.k. could you give us some shape of how that withdrawal is happening? >> first of all, i think i have artie said in the house that all all armored vehicles that are not damaged beyond

economic repair will be brought back to the u.k. that is our clear intention. that is the basis on which we are proceeding. we haveoment, to date, repatriated or withdrawn just about 50% of our total equipment, vehicles and major equipment, containers of other materials. about two thirds of that has come out of the air. about a quarter has come out of te, which-mobile rou primarily means going to being flown to the gulf and then brought back by sea. >> we are not going to leave anything in the gulf states. >> that is not our current plan. >> ok. thank you for that. >> i should probably just elaborate on that.

the level of rehabilitation of israel dilatation that ofrequired to make it -- equipment rehabilitation that is required to make it back. to put the vehicles back into call will require further work. if we were to deploy vehicles anywhere in the world, we would want them to be in a condition before we deploy them. >> ok. that is very interesting. how this is about happening. there are various uncertainties that we have talked about in the past, whether it is through kazakhstan, none of these

are necessary. is that essentially where we are? 1% ofthe present time, the material coming out has gone by the north line of communication, so that probably answers your question. it was always clear, remember the big driver of the lines of communication with during a period when the ground route to pakistan was closed, and clearly we want to have resilience. we want to have as many different options as possible, deal with congestion in the nato lines of communication and to deal with the risks of closure or indeed escalation on any one particular route. i have a question about the physical but about protection of personnel through our withdrawal process. could you say a bit more about how it is being organized as we

have gone about adequate protection through the withdrawal process? thee will clearly maintain forces that are required in order to provide appropriate protection to the very end of the withdrawal process, but clearly i would not want to go into the detail of how we would do that. a great deal of thought has gone into how to protect the run of the force as it draws down. >> [inaudible] is that right? >> [inaudible] they have their own near the battle route. >> thank you very much. >> i was speaking with one of the ministers the other day, and

absolutely magnificent, really super work being done, and perhaps you ought to visit sometime. seeing these hundreds of vehicles being brought back, superb. >> are you making any ,ontingencies about escalation 50%, some of them in the emerging groups? hashe majority of the 1% gone that way in order to prove the concept, prove the principle. first of all, we do not believe that the russian lock will be closed, but if it was, we do not believe that would have any material impact on the state of our drawdown. as i said, we have artie passed the equipment vehicles. a tiny fraction going to russia,

and if we need to reroute its -- by no means, the least campaign question, the -- these questions are most important. about lessons in history. do you embrace it? >> and your response to our last reports, you show that you would seek to learn, capture lessons and conduct operations. what plans do you have for a comprehensive review of afghanistan? >> first of all, i think we have said -- the military constantly seeks to learn lessons and as has become clear, i think, from the review of the bastion tact, that is done by a variety of methods. they can be acted on pretty much

immediately. others of which are longer processes designed to deliver medium term solutions and responses. clearly once the campaign is over, it will be appropriate to look at a strategic level across the campaign as a whole and see what additional lessons to those , that those short and medium term processes need to be learned, and i would expect that we would do that. the time to do that would be when a campaign is completed. >> understood. cap, int to medium term terms of looking in iraq, the whole question about how you got the story about weapons of mass destruction. have amended the strategic level, the decision to go home, are we going to actually ask the question, whether there was a threat, and allegations from

some very well-informed, that the remaining source of the taliban work for the government in fact when they arrived. in an early report, we commented tragedy, when we went in 2006, modest involvement in the campaign. it certainly got rid of the immediate taliban presence. in the capital surroundings, on , areround in the province we getting a big picture? are we asking the right questions? scoped in aot yet terms of reference for any future review of the campaign. this would be a matter to be discovered. >> do you think that we will be what happened in the 2006 and how we got involved?

>> can i suggest that perhaps the committee might like to make recommendations about what it thinks should be covered in a postcampaign review? i am sure such recommendations would be very much welcome. >> thank you. iswhy did you think it effective to learn lessons of the second-place and mechanism for learning lessons as you go along? >> i don't. we have mechanisms as we go shir --oth berry lessons, andrt more medium-term lesson learning from the campaign. i thought the question now is being asked was whether we have a plan for a more strategic review of the big strategic decision that took place in the

campaign. and my answer to that is that no decisions have been made, but i assume that we will want to look at those things and the scope of it. what we will look at have not been decided. >> the operation and top-level is probably the best in the world, consistently 55 people. company a if not the same as company b. in more immediate terms, can you just set out -- we touched on this several times in previous hearings -- but it is very helpful to know what you see, and the focus on how they connect together, the lessons learned. clearly everything to the individual give abilities.

>> every brigade in every involved in not every encounter. that is not just as it evolves. frankly, goes back to the army and down there at the center. >> where are those two institutions based? one is based on the coast. and those lessons are looked at by those that understand it. there are troops training to go. it comes in addition with very good publications out of the center, right down to two commanders, which told people and detail what they're going to expect, almost e-learning as well.

i make the point that the generals -- the the public and to understand the lessons learned. institutions ever made ownership of what is going on. >> for the army, yes. >> and where they sort of plug into the wet the joint doctrine center. into -- >> the joint doctrine center. >> do they have a sort of historical element to them or not? is there a historical element in there were not? >> they can do. they have historical research branches, and i think the operational recordkeeping that we afforded to our units is now that you can go back and go into individual entities, right down

to a very low level. so we do have reach, and you see that in the sort of recommendations they make. >> i'm trying to get a particular -- one is the americans in vietnam, people read the memos to the u.s. marines were wholly unaware of some really good stuff being produced a generation earlier before the second world war. is does trying to ask the historically tie into -- >> the lessons to be learned today are absolutely -- >> ties into -- >> lessons that we've learned in the past. about this, but the campaign of the ied, north africa, the one thing you used to say the most was the ied's that the enemy left. >> final question, just to follow-up on that, how it fits into the wiring diagram,

according to the air of institution reported, who do they report to, and who does the single army -- any organizations? >> the chief of staff has all of these organizations. the letter you are talking forces --mander land there supported by the agency i mentioned. and of course now with an increasing role of joint force with the joint forces commander to actually stand a broad scale of operations. based on their knowledge. they have a heavy role in this as well. and there is a diagram. and actually, it is one of the doctrine textbooks. wife that israel. -- >> that is very help.

>> so there will be an official history of the campaign? >> yes. >> i don't know that that decision has been taken, but it is customary for official histories to be written. pity ifuld be an awful custom or not adhere to, would you not agree? >> i am sure you will make that point in your report and i am sure he will be duly noted, but we have had this exchange in rabies session. i think there is a slight gap in next rotation about the time lag. theink i am right to say campaign was written 15 or so years after the campaign was over. i do not think there is customary for history to be -- it is normally regarded for to be appropriate to allow proper historical context to allow before the campaign is written.

>> yes, but by asking you the questions now, we are giving you the opportunity to answer while it is still fresh in your mind. to define the future. >> thank you very much. are there any other questions? secretary of state general, thank you very much indeed. the session is over. the committee will stay behind for just a few minutes, please. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, live your calls and comments on "washington journal withan "newsmakers" representative adam schiff. >> the suggestion is when we say freedom of choice, let people go

i think they, what often mean is they know best, the government does not know best, and so the notion of autonomy -- pretty elaborate way -- as basically a one-word way of saying that people know better than outsiders do about what would make their lives go out, and the sounds academic and abstract, but i think that mistakes are real in concrete. the question really when we think about our policies, at least they love the question is -- are people going to be sick? are they going to be miserable? are they going to be dead? and if we have some policy, whether it involves saving for retirement or if it involves privacy on the internet or if it involves air-quality -- if we makesink of some way that

them less likely to be sick, or visible, or dead, while also letting them ultimately go their own way if that is what they want, that is probably a good bargain. >> former obama administration official cass sunstein on his latest "why nudge?" tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> coming up on "washington iavo talksmary sch about the disappearance of malaysia airlines flight 370 as well as airlines safety in the regulation of foreign carriers. then david leventhal from the center of public integrity examines the democratic party's campaign against the koch brothers and their influence over politics. , georgetown university's eurasia and eastern study director angela stent on vladimir putin and the vote over the weekend on whether crimea

will leave ukraine. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. the congress is in recess for the week. president obama meets with the palestinian leader tomorrow at the white house. vice president biden is heading to poland and lithuania this week. the situation in ukraine is front and center. the referendum vote is underway today in crimea. and leaders say is illegitimate. is sunday, march 16 and we will begin with the latest on ukraine. thisger question of what means for president