washington journal, live with your phone calls and comments every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. coming up tonight, it is cut in with the reporters who broke the edward snowden leak story. that is followed by chuck hagel on dod's efforts to recover remains. examination of the candidates in the upcoming presidential election in afghanistan. >> hello. please, take your seats. welcome back. this next event, i promise is going to be interesting. it is a skype interview on the snowden revelations.

skypes.ves four that is the miracle of modern technology and it will either work or not work. it is very tricky so somebody may go down, somebody may have a time delay which is happening with one of our three guests. analogous to the quadruple somersault ringling brothers. please, bear with us. we will have problems from time to time but we have an excellent team of techies. i know because i can understand anything a say. it is my pleasure to interview -- introduce our interviewer, roger cohen. thank you. [applause]

>> good morning. we are going to rely on technology to try to bring this in balance and ignore whoever may or may not be listening. i think it is fair to say that in the immediate landscape there is a before and after edward snowden. nsarevelations about global data vacuuming are backed with concrete evidence. the feeling i think that many of us have had since 9/11 that something has gotten seriously skewed in the appropriate balance between national security and press freedom. the state, the surveillance state answer -- and civil liberties. edward snowden is a rock star to some. two others, he is a traitor.

ype, we haveia sk the three journalists who were entrusted by snowden, chosen by snowden to be the recipients of top-secret nsa archives. is laura poitras who is an award-winning journalist finishing a trilogy of movies on the post-9/11 america. this last movie concentrates, focuses on snowden. along with glenn greenwald, she traveled to hong kong last may to interview snowden. that gentleman is a senior fellow at the century foundation. a pulitzer prize-winning reporter over many years on national security issues. glenn greenwald is an investigative journalist,

author, and columnist now at first look media which is a new journalistic venture which is backed by the ebay founder. he is also a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer. well, hi, everyone. the most obvious fact about the three of you right now is that you are not here. lenn, when ig met you that there was a nontrivial trended that if you travel to the united states you would be arrested, you said. can i begin by asking you if you still feel that way and why you do? >> i feel that way even more now. it was a couple of months ago when you were here. episodes been other

were international security officials have made very clear that they view what we are doing as being not proper or dangerous and actually criminal. james clapper has been running around calling the reporters work accomplishments -- accomplices. committee, the house mike rogers, said that what we are doing was criminality and thievery. propounded --r pounded that theory that we were selling documents which was what a lot of people have been saying -- which what a lot of people have been doing for decades. creating these theories that could criminalize the journalism that we are doing. wrong tot would be allow that kind of intimidation to prevent us from doing what we have the right to do, including returning to a country. i do still think there is a

rift. there a lot of divisions in the u.s. government about what should be done. my belief is still that they would do the right thing. >> are you going to come back? >> definitely. it is inevitable. we are still figure out exactly when that will be. we were honored. there was a ceremony. that will be an interesting opportunity to go back to. there are other opportunities like that but we are still figuring out. at some point relatively soon, i .ntend to test the proposition been at, you have airports and elsewhere over several years. i am sure you share some of the same concerns and maybe you

could tell us how you feel about coming back. let me add this question. edward snowden appeared recently via skype at sxsw with a backdrop of the american constitution. is mr. snowden an american patriot? >> thank you for having me at this event. it is great to be here. in terms of coming back, it has i'vewell documented that been stopped for several years while crossing the border. computers have been confiscated. my main concern is different. i'm not worried about being arrested, i am worried it would subpoena me. i think it is real.

yes, i am going to come back for sure. i do hope that we can talk about protecting freedom rights because what we -- the real topic with a real urgency of what we need to do is talk about the sources. he put his right on the line to reveal what were illegal fighting programs that were be done. they were collecting entire countries information so we put his life on the line so we feels ingratitude towards them. >> are there legitimate government secrets? >> sure, there are.

if i could just backtrack for one second and talk about the legal environment. directornificant that clapper use the word a compost is. -- accomplices. the inspector general use the word agent. frameworkd the legal because of the espionage act of 97 years ago with which our it.rnment -- we are talking it has been the political culture that is graded the bearings for that. whether the is government will begin to shift that. i think there are legitimate national security questions.

the government is charged with protecting its people against external threats. the question is whether that -- the question is whether the boundaries will be drawn by the people. it is a level of principle. is whether the government represents or get to do it all on its own. bydo you systematically run the government? ask for a government response on the stories you have done on the snowden revelations or other stories about the nsa? that is still an essential part of what we do as journalists? >> i approach the subject of my stories and have always done that. i spend most of my years reporting on them. there are times where i understand the -- with the documents say and i tell them

what the story will be. sometimes i get contact. i discovered that something might not be right. there is an opportunity for them to say, we will ask you not to publish this or that for the following reasons. my sense is that we need to require the authenticity of that before we have a conversation with that. if it was real, it will be the following. and the executive editor of the washington post believe there will be damage. >> do you feel the same way, glenn? i think in all the reporting

that i have done, i have not. the people i work with have come to the nsa the same way they would go to anyone that you reporting and say this is what you intend to report about. what is your comment or implement? -- input? i think it would be ridiculous not to do that. why as a journalist would you want less information rather than more? i have been critical in the past that journalists spend lots of time cooperating with the government and almost negotiating what it is that can or cannot be published. you often spend months with senior officials talking about the stories that we want to publish. that is starting to cross a line where you put the government on the editorial board of. i don't think the washington

post or other newspapers have done that. that has been the case in the past. i do think that newspapers have aired a lot, very important -- poorly on the side of limiting information. holding on to the bush nsa story for 15 months and finally only publishing it. in general, i think that process is important realistically, legally. lawyers will tell you that you should give the government the opportunity to have input. it is important that it doesn't become a means by which the government is reporting it. when the government says we don't think you could publish that, it will be published anyway because they didn't have any good rationale. >> there was a strong feeling among some people that edward

snowden has threatened the security of the united states. that he took the oath and reneged on it. stories since his revelations revealing nsa intercepts of transmissions between taliban fighters or intercepts of e-mail regarding intelligence assessment on iran. that is not domestic surveillance. it is not spying on allies. it is what intelligence services all around the world do. or immoral illegal and how is it not damaging to the united states? all, either member the intelligence committee regarding the constitution. he thought it had violations. i think it is important to

understand the process that he used. it is so often distorted and missed described. edward snowden has not published a single document in the last nine months. >> but you have? >> i have. laura has. >> what is the difference? did not think that he should be in the position to decide which documents ought to be published and which ones ought to be suppressed. well-established, well regarded newspapers and to makee journalists those judgments about what is in the public interest to be published. specifically, a lot of what i am background,s for context, per understanding but i don't think all of this should be published. if i wanted this publish, i wouldn't need you guys i would just publish it to the internet.

there are stories about things like -- a story that is public that shouldn't be -- i think the question why it is published should be posed to the journalist and not necessarily snowden. i will say things the country due to one another are incredibly newsworthy. the new york times pre-snowden reported that the israelis and by using are engaged incredibly sophisticated viruses. that doesn't mean -- >> do you in your head draw a line somewhere between newsworthy and endangering? >> sure. the reason why nine or 10 months into the story we have published top-secret documents is because we are constantly engaged in that political process of what

is the newsworthy but would avoid harming innocent people. i think we have done a good job at that. -- there wasthat zero -- not a little bit, but zero that a single story has caused harm to any individual or endangered national security in any way. all we get are very familiar, vague rituals that government officials do. nothing specific or concrete about any harm being done. >> please feel free to jump in any of that, laura. i would like to ask you about of howstion you raised our source is to be protected? whichama administration jim risen called it most hostile ever towards the press have had a very aggressive

anti-leak campaign targeting leakers. the technology is there to trace them. going forward, what is to be done about that? that is why we are gathered here today. i would love to talk about those issues. our job as journalists is to protect sources and we have to do that. we know that from the experience of vap case, that the government is using the technology to find out who publish the documents. we have an obligation to use means to protect our sources. we need to learn how to have these tools if we wanted sources to come to them. one of the things that is been no shocking to me is the lack of technological awareness among news organizations.

encryption which are not that, located to use if you want to protect someone. there are tools that we use every day on the internet. accounts thatank encouragement -- encryption. the most familiar accusation for any foreign correspondent in a sensitive situation like a war is that you are not a journalist, you are a spy. if we start using encryption or even elaborate encryption, isn't that just going to reinforce exponentially the perception of those that might be detaining you that in fact you are an agent, not a journalist. >> that is ridiculous. do use encryption every day when you connect to the internet. i think one of the results of

those disclosures and that encryption is going to be easier to use. i think that is going to become ubiquitous. privacy.n't expect the e-mail is meant for the people they're sending it to and i think that is going to be one of the repercussions of snowden disclosures. invade think that will or flag people. i think we need more encryption. >> sorry. you wanted to jump in? >> i do. there could be a political that theh view government want to know everything about everybody. that is an accurate. it wants to be able to. in regard to encryption, you use

the word fred -- thread. virus products, anonymity products, it acknowledges no realm and human indications which is prepared to be denied. problem is the that it includes journalists. the u.s. government in general are users of this technology. which arecause leaks anything that the government is doing that doesn't have a press conference about. the has to be counterintelligence threat. counterintelligence is one of the principal missions of the u.s. government. when you start regarding journalists as a threat, you open up all of the criminal,

legal, most extreme kinds of surveillance tools that are available to you. you start using that sort of technology. i completely agree with laura about the necessity of learning encryption which rambles the content of your communication and anonymity. there are some journalistic problems. it is first contact problem. almost all the sources i have developed over the years have whileeople i met in iraq i was with military personnel. or at promotional events in washington. maybe that leads the side conversations or a phone call. five or 10 conversations that will be normal and then gradually you develop an interest.

you start string closer to the line because their bosses do not want to talk about that stuff in public. this doesn't matter if you are not -- that is a problem that is hard to solve. edward snowden is one of the small sample of people in my career whose very first contact with me, through laura, was entirely anonymous and encrypted. there is some progress here. .here is a terrific program a piece of technology that is being developed called secure drop. what makes it easier to make first contact with a reporter. we have a long way to go on that.

>> sounds like maybe we we should -- we should be learning different things that journalism schools these days. >> it has to be a mandatory course. >> encryption? >> the basic ecology of privacy. encryption. the government says we will need to subpoena journalists anymore because we know exactly who we are talking to -- who they are talking to anyway. do you think that describes the state of affairs now? >> definitely. i think there has been a lot of attention paid to the threat of the fourth amendment and privacy rights. person, every word is being monitored. they could be if the government chooses.

it is the capability for surveillance. there was a lot of attention made to the applications of privacy like how how do we adapt our behavior and we can't be certain that will be are saying or doing is actually being unmonitored? what are the implications for our freedom? is very little attention paid to the applications of the fourth amendment, the freedom of the press which is how you engage in a free -- have you have a free press? simply their metadata collection that they are doing, to know every person who is communicating with you. how can journalism be done in that environment? how can attorneys investigate important details on behalf of their clients? pocket informant talk to human rights organizations and to do

so with the security that they won't be exposed? it has extreme publications for rall range of core liberties, including the ones that americans -- it is important to our political freedom. i think that is critical. encryption is vital but it doesn't shield metadata. it shields content. you can seeols, some forms of metadata. people warned that investigating -- investigative journalism is coming to a standstill in the country because of what the government is doing. they mean that is become unnecessary to do that because now because of this you biggest surveillance makes it almost impossible to be an

investigative journalist because it makes it impossible for people to communicate with one another. >> edward snowden has praised russia for standing against human rights violations by the powerful. president putin has just invaded and then annexed crimea. the relationship between the united states and russia is increasingly hostile. there is even talk of a new cold war. how worried should we be that mr. snowden is old herbal -- is vulnerable to the russian intelligence services to in this increasingly tense situation? >> i need to back up a little bit. be in russia?

he was on his way to latin america where he was going to transit from russia. united government canceled his passport. he was in the transit area of the airport. president putin blakeney made fun of u.s. intelligence services. the one place that you can operate and go get? go get him there. it is asking a lot for edward snowden who is under international asylum. it is clear that russia was not his destination. he deliberately did not break

any of the documents -- you didn't bring any of the documents with them to russia for the purpose that he wanted to make sure he could not be compelled to disclose them. means of bring any obtaining those documents. his intention, which was quite effective, was to make sure that he could not be forced to disclose. even under torture, he can't give the russian that information. he didn't mean he was superman. he literally can't produce it. >> sure. >> that one thing that you referenced has been distorted by so many people for so long now -- the idea that -- >> how can distort a statement like that? >> i will explain. >> i just read it.

things'm sure you know, can be taken out of context and meaning could be distorted. he was not standing up and praising russia in general as a defender and human rights. anytime someone is granted when someone is granted asylum in the united states. he was simply saying in this case thank you for granting me asylum from persecution. for defending my particular human rights. >> do you think he feels uncomfortable in russia right now? >> i'm going to let him speak for himself, but i think for us as journalists, your halfway read about your recounting of events -- halfway right about

your recounting of events. it could be a benefit for the u.s. government because they get to demonize him and say he is in russia. why is somebody who comes forward with information saying it is illegal or need to leave?l that is the substantive question than trying to figure out the details of whether we should be holding a press conference on something we know nothing about such as crimea. does he needis why to flee after watching the parade of whistleblowers for blowing the whistle on improper government conduct?

>> people can judge for themselves what they think of snowden. it's a legitimate question. i was baffled when people only want to talk about snowden and whether he is right or wrong and his personality rather than the big issue we need to be talking about. >> do you worry sometimes in your determination to be adversarial to the u.s. government your insufficiently adversarial to some other governments around the world? >> i don't ever worry about that. i use my citizenship of the united states to hold my government accountable for the bad actions it does. the reason we have a first amendment and a free press is

not because we need american journalists to criticize .overnments across the world it's to make sure people are not abusing their power. that at least as much as we need people reporting around the world. >> i am sitting at the new york times building, bastian of the mainstream media. of have been pretty critical establishment journalist. what you have against us? >> i have actually published a number of things for the new york times. i published a short documentary, one about nsa surveillance. i am happy they published that.

let's face it. there are people who do great work. there are people who towed the line. we have seen that. justify andrd to not use the word torture when we were torturing people for many years. why don't they use the word torture? i didn't think it's a proud moment for journalism, and i don't think the invasion of iraq was a great moment for journalism. there was great journalism done about the war in iraq area there was great journalism done about torture. there are always going to be journalists who are going to try to get to the truth, but there that are goings to be persuaded by what the government things can and should be public.

i obviously fundamentally disagree. the fact that the nsa is now spying on congress and not releasing a report on torture, we should be ashamed. this is not a proud moment. i don't think it's particularly radical to find these things objectionable. what i think his radical is we are torturing people and spying on congress or spying on entire countries. we are doing all this in secret. think should be part of the public discourse. i can tell what our obligation sets to have the skill introduce a greater understanding. that's our job. >> more than radical. it's unconscionable.

do you think of your extraordinary work -- do you feel the tide is turning in some post-9/11this disorientation, this abuse of power and technology, do you think the awareness is growing of what went wrong? is great power of society its ability to correct course, to change. the you think that is happening? the you think that is happening? i think it has been a long time it has been moving in one direction. further astray from what would and -- what one would consider rule of law.

in guantanamo we had a prison without anyone being charged for a crime. i felt hopeful they would be corrected when the obama administration came in, but that has not happened. the thing that has been positive is that it has reawakened an adversarial press. thate have been shocked these decisions have been made completely in secret without public debate, and there does seem to be some sort of a link. wouldn't call it a shift of the pendulum. >> the crucial thing that has happened here is an increase in

transparency. obviously, information is power, conducted with transparent. because of this transparency you have seen not only journalism building upon itself but all sorts of things happening. you have a real marketplace for privacy. outposts, butll they were boutique. you now have large companies competing to demonstrate to consumers the cousin of these revelations. google has encrypted all the traffic between its data centers. promised on the

day they will encrypt all of by last january, so they have done so. lawsuits that try to challenge programs that violate statues with the constitution which were thrown out before on the ground the plaintiff could not prove they were effective. now they can prove they are effective. we will find out which of these programs are constitutional and which are not. you have members of congress who happily went along with these who are changing their and all the mechanisms of accountability that exist in political and civil society are

collectively, where do we draw the line? that, but iith all also think the aspect of what has changed and the way people think about all of these issues not just in the united states but around the world. what is interesting is just how global it was. if you look at the nsa scandal of 2000 five, those were american companies. if you start talking about google and yahoo!, not only are you talking about principal means of communication but in all these countries all over the world, i think it alters politics and political discourse about how the united states is , about the dangers of allowing the states to exercise

secrecy, and i think once you , irt affecting consciousness don't think the primary change is going to come from legislation the u.s. government introduces. fromnk it's going to come profound shifts in how people start thinking about all these issues and these revelations a lot of people around the world have found genuinely shocking. >> that's encouraging. maybe american intervention is alive and well. end of ouring to the time. i think i would like to ask all three of you to try to leap forward in your mind a decade or two and say how you think mr. snowden will be remembered in american and global history.

perhaps laura,ou how will he be recalled? >> i think we are at a in terms of how we decide to treat communications , and if we find ourselves in more orwellian universe in a decade i think everyone will look back to this moment and see that he at least gave us the option to make these choices. >> glenn? >> i think it is the most instructive example, because these are perhaps not universally but widely considered to be irrelevant. attack all bloomberg -- daniel l berg, but if you go

and look at how he was talked americans, he was talked about in exactly the same terms as edward snowden. he got vindicated, and i think history appreciated the information he let us know about what the government was doing, and we realize he engaged in a heroic emma self-sacrificing act to convince the public. edward snowden already is viewed in those terms, and the next decade he will be viewed even more in those terms around the world and in the united states as well. >> i don't love the term whistleblower, because i think people understand it much too narrowly. au only get to be whistleblower if you use certain .ethods

the public interest in knowing things go way beyond what is illegal. the question is what the law should be and where we want to draw the line as a society. i would say, a lantern holder or something like that and what it has done is enable us to tell where the balance is. to mastermind. there is a fundamental conflict sometimes between security and accountability between self-defense and self government. at the work in secret the nsa has done, out of perfectly good motive of defending the country, you are going to use every tool available, but doing so in secret you are proving the possibility that people you represent are going to be able to set your boundaries, so what snowden does is allow us to make

that decision. >> thank you very much. we seem to have lost glenn at the last minute. nothing sinister, but thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> coming up next chuck hagel. an examination of the candidates in the upcoming presidential elections in afghanistan. 2016, a look at potential u.s. candidates. >> on the next washington journal the president of autism speaks will talk about the recent cdc report showing a rise in children in the u.s. and then a report that

shows residents leaving rural areas for more urban areas. and the executive director of compete america on advocating for tech companies in the visa process for highly skilled workers. washington journal, live with your phone calls and comments every morning at 7:30 eastern on c-span. the worlday morning bank president discusses global economic inequality. he is speaking at the council on foreign relations starting at 8:30 eastern on c-span 2. >> the issue is no longer whether to trade. it's how to trade. it's what are the rules of engagement, the old issue between protectionism and free

trade is over. it's history. the argument over the rules of fair trade and how to get our workers and businesses on the level playing field is a debate of the resident and the future. -- the president and the future. our goal must be to obtain compatibility between all countries that are trading just as we have compatibility between all the states in the united states. debate started before the cold war ended and before the wall fell in berlin. it most of the cold war areas are standard of living was rising and we were locked in a battle with communism. we didn't care too much about training. we never had a debate on the floor about a trade treaty like this because we just assumed economic growth. we always put trade treaties to be subservient to defense or

foreign policy. it just wasn't that important. this is the last of the old world trade treaties. ouricans now realize standard of living has been declining for over 15 years. most importantr national goals must be a rising standard of living. proponents of this represent the past, represent the status quo, and fear of real change. >> find more highlights of 35 years of house floor coverage on our c-span page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public cable and your local satellite provider. >> monday, chuck hagel had a briefing with reporters at the totagon to look at efforts improve the process.

his remarks also included comments about ukraine. >> afternoon. happy spring. you are laughing. it is here. many of you know that i'm going to leave tomorrow morning for a 10-day trip to the asia-pacific. some of you will be accompanying me on a trip. i think you have seen the itinerary of where we are going. some of the focus, starting with the defense minister meeting in hawaii for two days and onto japan and china and mongolia.

it is to emphasize and rebalance strategic interests of our country, to reassure our allies to again very clear to make our commitment to our allies in the asia-pacific. this will be my fourth trip since becoming secretary of defense. the meeting in why in the full agenda of the trip underscores the importance of this rebalance and it will give us an opportunity to talk specifically about the issues that we're dealing with in the asia-pacific. all of our partners have security challenges, issues that are of concern to peace,

prosperity, the future of that region as you all know, we have been a pacific power for many years. we look forward to continuation of building those relationships and partnerships. security and stability are key anchors for prosperity, for economic development, and we rebalance in the asia-pacific with all of those balance of responsibilities with our focus. it is clear that there is tremendous progress that has been made in the asia-pacific in the last years and it has been result of a secure area, an area that has worked through many of its differences peacefully. there are still issues and questions. it is a region that has prospered because they have worked through many of these differences.

the aussie on institution is critically important of that. to have 10 defense ministers in hawaii on united states soil is important. i'm looking forward to that meeting. let me turn to another matter before taking your questions. that is the finding and recovering in identifying the remains of americans missing from past conflicts. this effort is not just a a top priority for the department of defense, it is our responsibility and obligation. in february, i directed the acting undersecretary for defensive policy so that the dod could more effectively count for missing personnel and ensure

their families receive timely and accurate information. based on his recommendations, i have directed the department to undertake the following steps to reorganize this effort into a single, accountable organization that has complete oversight of personal accounting resources, research, and operations. first, we will establish a new defense agency that combines these defense prisoners of war missing personnel office, the jpac office, and select forces of the life science equipment laboratory. by consolidating functions, we will resolve issues of duplication and inefficiency and

build a stronger, more transparent, and more responsive organization. all communications with family members of the missing from past conflicts will be managed and organized by this new agency. second, to streamline the identification process, a medical corner working for the new agency will be the single dod identification authority. they will oversee the scientific operations of the central identification laboratory in hawaii and other laboratories. third, centralize budgetary resources for this mission. we will work with congress to realize its appropriations into a single budget. fourth, to improve the search, recovery, and identification process. we will have a system containing all missing service members'

information. i have directed the department to develop proposals for extending public-private partnerships in identifying are missing. the goal is to leverage the capabilities and the efforts of organizations outside of government that responsibly work to account for missing. these steps will help improve the accounting mission, increase the number of identifications for our missing, and include case files to include all personnel. we will continue to do everything we can to account for and bring as many of our missing and fallen service personnel as possible home to the united states. we have been listening to and consulting with veteran service organizations about how to improve operations. we all appreciate their input and their support to ensure the full accounting of all of our

country's missing service members and we will continue to work closely together as we go forward. i want to thank mike lumpkin and his team and i want to thank the veterans organizations who have been so important over so many years to this effort. in particular, i want to thank anne mills griffin from the national league of families for her many years of service on the project. i have known her and worked with her for over 30 years on many projects. she presented to me a five page, singlespaced, well thought through first identification of the issues, a framing of the problems, and i got some very solid recommendations on how to go forward.

she deserves a lot of credit. her organization deserves credit as well as the institutions and veterans organizations that have been key to this effort for many years. thank you. >> on that last issue, how to resolve this address with the basic demand of the families of the missing that you provide faster and more reliable accounting? and a second question, can you confirm the reports that russians have begun the point forces back from the border in ukraine? >> on the first question, if you really break this down as to what we have done here, as to how it relates to the families, we are streamlining everything. we are streamlining the organization, the process, and the resources. what that means to families -- first, they will be communicated with clearly, directly, and it

will be communications from one central location. that has not been the case. they will have a place to go to to identify updates, questions, concerns. it will not be a one-way street. it will be a two-way street. we will communicate with them. i think another reason the families will strongly support what we're doing is that it helps us do the job. it helps us get the mission accomplished. we have tens of thousands of missing all over the world. it is a difficult, very difficult mission. if we put together a better institution, organization, better management, structure, use of our resources, then i

hope we will be far more effective in being able to accomplish the mission of identifying these missing remains and getting these missing remains run home to the families. i am encouraged and i again want to say how much we all appreciate the good work that has been done here. there is not a more poignant, emotional, more important issue in our society today and you know that. you take care of the people who gave their lives to this country and you take care of their families. it has been a critical component of who we are as americans from the beginning of this republic. your second question. i cannot confirm, bob, one-way or the other whether the russians are pulling troops back from the ukrainian-russian border.

president obama made it very clear to president putin that it will be required and necessary for us to have any further, meaningful conversation about how we resolve and de-escalate this crisis. it was also made clear by secretary kerry yesterday in conversations with the minister. >> if i could follow-up, is it your understanding that there was an agreement to pull back the troops? >> no, i did not say that. i said that the president told president putin and secretary kerry told minister lavrov. i was assured that troops were there for exercise. he assured me that they were not going to cross the border and i

think mr. lavrov has said the same thing as president putin. there is still a tremendous buildup of russian forces on the border. >> can you give us a sense of how many troops? >> tens of thousands. >> what you think president putin amassed those troops on the border? do you think there was really any intent to actually enter ukraine with those forces, or that he simply did that as a bargaining chip so that the rest of the world would forget both the fact that they took over crimea and think, well, as long as they're not going into ukraine, they can keep crimea. >> you're not going to like the answer, but i do not know what his intentions were.

>> could i ask you about north korea? the artillery firing by the north koreans into the western see earlier today, less the medium-range missile firing and their fitness on a nuclear test? do you worry about what evidence we have that we may be entering a new provocation cycle with north korea. and also, a malaysian minister talked about traveling to meet you and said he would be asking you to additional capabilities or equipment to help search for the plane. he was not specific in our was wondering if there is any additional assistance that the u.s. might be able to practically give to the effort. north korea first. >> on north korea, i am in touch with our commander there, the u.n. commander, the supreme commander general.

he had a report two hours ago this morning. i think you have the latest. there has been that artillery exchange. the fishing vessel was released. the provocation that the north koreans have once again engaged in is dangerous and needs to stop. as to the malaysian acting transportation minister, i have spoken with him twice in the last week. in both instances, when he is requested assistance we have provided that assistance. some of the latest equipment being the pinger locator, which has left australia on an australian ship headed towards this vast area where we all

think we may have identified something. just a reminder, that area is the size of new mexico. this very sophisticated equipment that we have provided, as far as i know, everything the malaysian government has requested of us is really reliant totally on a defined search area. it has tremendous capability, but we are going to have to narrow the search area. i don't know what additional requests you make of me. i certainly will listen carefully to whatever those are. i think the australians now or in the lead on this. they have been doing a tremendous job. we have provided everything we

can, but the australians have this now and they are doing a good job with it. >> the foreign minister announced yesterday that north korea was going to run a nuclear test soon. how did you respond to that statement? >> the north koreans have to stop these provocative actions. we have been very clear on that. obviously, when i am in china that will be a subject that i will discuss with my counterpart in china. >> ukraine has asked the united states for weapons and for other military supplies as they feel vulnerable in light of what has

happened in recent weeks. q brings up to speed on how those deliberations are working through the u.s. government, whether there is any new thinking about what type of aid would be a good idea to render? >> the ukrainians have asked for different kinds of materials and the request for assistance. it also know that the m.r.e.'s have been delivered. they're going to the last cuts of decision-making on what assistance the united states will provide. secretary kerry is in brussels today. he will be there for nato meetings for the next two days. i suspect that these are issues

that our nato partners and the united states will be discussing as well. >> in general was scheduled to specify in front of the armed services committee this week but he was recall. is there any thought to having another general stay there instead of testifying as he is supposed to do? >> the kind of world do we live in is not a prescribed, weeklong schedule kind of world. depending on issues and challenges that occur, we have the flexibility avoids adjusting our military commanders, depending on where they are required. in the general's case, i think he a smart thing for him to do to have them go back in light of his importance to nato. there was the nato's foreign minister meeting next few days. the supreme allied commander is going to be an integral part of that over the next two days. we're flexible in depending on

where we need our commanders. >> i would like to get your thoughts on this march 14 memo from your department about the banning of tobacco sales on military bases and in the navy in particular. you were in vietnam. you know how cigarettes are often used by forces in combat. it is a morale issue. where do you stand on the issue of banning tobacco sales? >> the navy already has taken some action on this over the years. i think you start, like any of these issues, you look at the health of your force. i don't know if there is anyone in america who still thinks that tobacco is good for you. maybe there are some. the surgeon general 50 years ago made that statement pretty clear. we do not allow smoking in any of our government holdings,

restaurants. states and municipalities have clear regulations on this. i think that in reviewing any options that we have as to whether through commissaries sell or continue to sell tobacco is something we need to look at and we are looking at it. i think we owe it to our people. the health care costs are stunning, well over $1 billion just in the department of defense on tobacco-related illness. but dollars are one thing. the health of your people, i don't know if you put a price tag on that. i think it needs to be looked at. >> mexico and u.s. military forces have developed a very close relationship recently and they have agreements to support each other in case of natural disasters or other common threats.

recently, they have not been any meetings between the secretaries. do you plan to go to mexico or will the secretary come over here, and what is the current level of cooperation? our mexican troops participating in military exercises with the u.s.? >> i think that you probably know that our secretary of homeland security johnson was just in mexico and met with all the senior leaders, including the president. i will be going to mexico. i am not sure we're ready to announce that today. i get nervous when kirby gets

too close to me here and tells me not to say something. i will be going to mexico. mexico is a very important partner. we will continue to strengthen that relationship. i will see you on the plane. [captioning performed by >> on the next washington aboutl was still talks the rise of autism rates on children in the u.s. and then a study shows people leaving rule areasfor more -- rural for more urban areas. the executive director of compete america on advocating for tech companies in the visa process for highly skilled workers. live with your phone calls and comments on twitter and facebook every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> tuesday an examination of tax strategies. homeland security subcommittee is looking at how u.s. companies use offshore shelters. you can hear this at 9:30 eastern on c-span three. >> the car spun around in a circle. one girl got ejected. the driver instantly wanted to know where her film was. she was looking for her film. she was stuck in the back seat. she was alive for about 35 minutes before they cut her out.

♪ >> hello, i am madeline. i am a 16-year-old and ready to start driving. alsovery eager, yet scared. many drivers are focusing more on cell phones than on the road. the districts show that distracted driver is incredibly dangerous -- statistics show that distracted driving is incredibly dangerous. >> we have announced the winner of the student cam video competition. watch the top 21 winning videos starting tuesday at 6:50 a.m. eastern and see all the winning documentaries online at studentcam.org.

afghanistanrom assessed the candidates. speakers include the former u.s. commander general john allen and the former ambassador neumann. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to brookings. thank you for coming to discuss afghanistan. i am michael o'hanlon, we have a very distinguished group of american and afghan individuals and officials to talk with us -- former officials and continued scholars and experts on afghanistan to talk about the transitions underway. this upcoming saturday is afghanistan's presidential election. it will probably not be a conclusive first round, there will more likely than not be a runoff. one will ultimately get a majority in the late spring or even sooner. we will talk more about those

details in a second. we have -- seatedd from your left to right, former ambassador ron nuemann, career foreign service officer and ambassador also in bahrain and algeria. he and his father were both ambassadors to afghanistan, making them along with the adams the only father-son team to be ambassador to the same country. it indicates the depth of commitment by this family to this important country. ron continues to be very active in his interests in afghanistan. he and i were there recently on a research trip and he has been many times since being ambassador. general john allen was the commander of international security assistance force through last year at about this time. he retired a year ago today. we thank him and congratulate him for his service.

in february 2013 he passed the reigns to general dunford. general allen continues to serve the country actively and supports the israeli-palestinian peace effort. he is a distinguished fellow at brookings. we are delighted to see him. he is one of the most experienced commanders. his 19 months make him one of the longest-serving and most experienced experts on the subject. he was also deputy commander at schedule command. he was a deputy commanding general for the marines in iraq. he was a leading u.s. voice at the pentagon on asia-pacific policy prior to that. thrill to have him here. i think he is still the only marine in history who was the superintendent at annapolis. for the navy to trust their

midshipmen to a marine tells you even more about general allen. thrilled to have him. >> it was called the great experiment. >> najib sharifi is an accomplished afghan who has been a journalist throughout his career. like one of the three presidential candidates, abdullah abdullah, he was trained as a medical doctor. he is also interested in afghanistan's future. he has been an analyst for afghanistan awareness and analysis, the place he now works. we will talk about websites in a moment so you all can learn more

from these distinguished gentlemen. he has also worked for the afghanistan research and evaluation unit uncovered afghanistan for a number of media outlets. we would like to cover the elections and also everything that surrounds them and everything going on by way of transition and 2014. this is also the year when isaf will end its mission with uncertainty at present over what will follow. withits mission uncertainty at present over what will follow. that will be a key issue. security will be front and center thinking about the elections, the violence the taliban has been trying to employ to influence the coverage of election. also as we look forward and think about afghanistan's stability. everyone will be thinking about security. the more immediate question is to think about what is going on

this week in afghanistan. the first round of elections for president on saturday. there will also be elections at the prediction -- there will also be elections at the provincial level saturday. we will talk amongst ourselves amended to your questions and answers about halfway through. i would like to begin with ambassador ron nuemann, ambassador from 2005 2007 in afghanistan. war: book "the other winning and losing in afghanistan" is one of the best books i can recommend. i want to discuss how he sees the situation today. the stakes and american policy choices. >> thank you very much. been heavily involved in afghanistan for seven years. at least six of those, if not all seven, has been referred to

as "the decisive year" in afghanistan. there is some truth in that. it is a bit like a really orficult graduate program military training program where you have one test after another. if you fail, you are out. if you pass, you get to take another test. the elections are that kind of test for afghanistan. perhaps even more so than for us. if they fail it, it is difficult. if they succeed, they get another chance. we will be going down the line, we have military expertise and afghan expertise. i wanted to talk, since i am the about what the u.s. needs to think about in its own policy as we start off talking about afghanistan. electionhis will be an that is disputed.

there will be a measure of fraud and certainly violence. if not between candidates, certainly from the taliban. important to understand that we really have -- we the u.s. have two goals. they are related and interlocking but separate. one is an acceptable passage of power to a new president with a broadly recognized acceptability by afghans. reasonablyis a better election. the two are related. and conversations show that afghans care about the transparency of the election. they are excited, despite all the violence. i will do something that is very dangerous for diplomats -- i will make a prediction close enough to the event that anyone remember what you

said. a pundit is someone who is frequently wrong but never uncertain. [laughter] i am going to predict that the turnout is going to be heavy in the selection. election,in this notwithstanding the violence. afghans want it. they have a potential to react if they are denied a fair election. there will be a high level of tolerance for what you might call equal opportunity fraud. which i expect will take place all over the country by all the candidates and their backers. the second goal is progress in democracy. obviously, the two are related. i say the passage of power in a without is reasonable

too much violence between , whiching parties afghans except as a higher priority. if you have that, you go forward with building and you have a chance for more elections and more progress. dispute, you are just going down a road of chaos. because thehis difference is a difference of about how america relates to the early results. an academic distinction alone. one that controls policy. our firstelieve, fairly smoothis transfer of power, we should not be instantly reacting to all the cries and yells of fraud and misbehavior. they will immediately break out after the first vote. afghanistan -- afghan culture is also a shame culture, losing is

a shame. even if you lost fairly you will call a fraud because it retains your honor. that is on top of the actual fraud i expect to occur. fact is what we need to be doing is not putting ourselves in a corner and taking rapid positions on fraud. our initial effort ought to be push the afghans out in front, support the election machinery and the electoral bodies as long as they even partially deserve it. council afghan candidates to look to their longer-term interest in their country and not bet everything on winning or death. scenes without being responsible as the great superpower for the result, to encourage afghans to pull themselves together. this election is not going to be over after the first round.

this election is going to be disputed. secondly, it is very unlikely that one candidate makes 50% which is required. there will be two candidates in a runoff. the dispute between number two and number three is likely to take some months or weeks to work out. florida, except with kalashnikovs. [applause] --[laughter] this process will go on for a while and then you have a second round. it is you are not locked into an early view. you need to work with candidates. it could go on for five months or six months, violence is going to intensify with and as it does. the taliban have declared they are going to make every effort to sabotage the election and prevent it from happening. and to prevent it from being successful.

we need to make up our mind of that. i am talking about security, that is someone else's job. >> you are good at it, i will come back for that. thank you for a framing of that. before we talk to general allen, i will go to najib. tell us about what the election is shaping up to be, a little bit about the candidates if you wish or the media coverage -- the role of independent civil society in overseeing this. your confidence the process is going to be reasonably constructive and helpful to the future of the country. whatever we need to understand what has been going on in afghanistan and the choices afghans are poised to make saturday. >> thank you. good morning, i am glad to be here. let me start from here. talk about the general politics of elections in afghanistan. i will go into some details.

thehe current elections, first thing we have to keep in mind is that president karzai will play an integral role in success and failure of elections. he will also play an integral role in who will win the results of the elections. if he puts his weight behind a particular candidate. the second thing is that this election is not about a person. because we do not have an outright favorite. it is mainly about the teams. in afghanistan, evan the same -- in afghanistan, ethnicity plays a role in politics and elections. -- according to the constitution, we have a president and the president has two vice presidents.

the first vice president, second vice president. the teams have shaped up in a way that covers, to a large , the major ethnic groups. but because we have four major ethnic groups, every team cannot be complete it will leave out at least one. rolecity plays a prominent in the elections. continuing on the role of ethnicity, the votes of the three big ethnic groups -- hazaras --ajiks, and will be divided. many candidates represent the ethnic groups on different tickets.

the only ethnic group that has is the best solidity uzbeks. dr. ghani'sum is on ticket. we have 11 candidates that were in the vetting process by the electoral commission. only eightwe have candidates because three of them dropped out in favor of other candidates. one of them abandoned the elections. is toason they do this secure political concessions from the candidates who have the

best chance of winning. and administrative positions. we have these candidates that we expect to have more withdrawals. in the coming week in favor of the front runners. ,ainly, dr. zalmai rassoul believed to be a favorite candidate. i have got some other facts about the election. they are extremely striking. biggest election ,onitoring organization issued the glare the results of a survey they carried out a couple months ago. afghansurvey, 92% of support elections. 92% of afghans.

only 5% are against the idea of elections. public, the survey covers all parts of the country. 50% of them are women, 50% are men. have said they will take part in the elections. again, that is striking. in previous presidential elections the turnout was below 30%. around 29% or something. is -- another important fact , taliban attacks have intensified in afghanistan. with the intensification of th desire --s, people

people's desire has increased to vote and express themselves, mainly in opposition. mainstreamt that the media and social media have made this significant role in enhancing the civic role of afghan citizens. which is a huge change in afghanistan. have -- a going to of national observers. unfortunately, we will not have a lot of international observers because of security concerns. about 65,000 national observers across the country. among 6,775 voting centers

8ecause of security centers, 7 8 voting centers will not be operational. places where there is insecurity and observers cannot take part. -- there the parts voting stations that are the most vulnerable to fraud. this is the experience we had in 2009. for thatyou very much overview. as we get into a second round after we hear from general allen, we will talk more about the major candidates and what they stand for and who they are. i will make sure i mentioned their names. we have heard them in passing. we have former foreign minister rassoul, thought to be president preference.

president karzai has avoided making any public endorsements so far. we have former foreign minister the runner-up in the 2009 race to karzai. he also has a mixed tajik-p ashtun background. withlosest association afghanistan during the difficult years, he stayed in the area during the difficult years of the 1980's and 1990's, partially as a physician and partially as a leader in the northern alliance. and then we have dr. ashraf g and aa friend to many ndc former world bank economist. he has been finance minister in afghanistan and has helped in various advisory roles. he was also a candidate in 2009. he has done quite well in

polling so far. we have these three candidates who look to be the strongest. everyone will want to talk more about them. first, general allen, a lot to talk about with security. of the casual american consumer of news media is deteriorating security, especially with the tragic attacks of the last couple weeks. help us understand this in context. including the question of what the afghan security forces, what they are now doing in the country as we downsize. >> thanks a lot, great to be with you all this morning. i am a bit reflective, it is a retire. a day that i you can depart afghanistan but you can never leave afghanistan. there is not a day that goes by that i do not think about the wonderful afghans with whom i served and with whom i felt such great affection. of reflection today for me, i see a german

uniform and audience. probably many folks from diplomatic missions here to represent many of the 50 countries that served in that coalition. i just want to remind his audience as i remind every troops have0,000 served at the height of this war. they performed magnificently. seldom have we seen so large and so capable a field force do so much for the good of the country when it has such capacity for destruction. it is a great example of how one countries to come together with a common set of values, they can make a contribution in a difficult environment. for the u.s. and the coalition, we are exceptionally fortunate to have a fellow by the name of joe dunford commanding in afghanistan. it has been -- beyond his many personal and professional

characteristics which recommend him for this very difficult job -- it has been a long time since we have handed an american or nato commander a more challenging set of missions than joe dunford is attempting to undertake. with some significant success. there is a saying that the farther away from afghanistan you become, you are far more remote from the circumstances. when you get closer it looks better than from the distance. joe has done a magnificent job in handling what i would say are five major tasks right now. they could have been done in a resident's order at one point. tomorrow, we will be insi de 8 months remaining on the isaf mission. these are tasks he is executing

concurrently. it requires leadership and skill in planning operationally and logistically. the first is to maintain the very delicate advisory and support balance isaf the -- the isaf forces continue to have with the ansf, the afghan national security forces. the afghans are leaving most of the operations. while the last fighting season was the first fighting season where they have full operational control across the board, this will be the first fighting season with that kind of experience under their belt. equilibriumdelicate is advising and assisting as the afghans continue to move to the front and continue their operations in terms of securing the local population and also in dealing with the taliban is extraordinarily important. the second thing joe is doing, i am going down one through five. i want to make sure everyone

understands that some of these occurring are concurrently. as the pressures of the campaign continue to increase, the clock ticks down to december 2014, you can get a sense of the enormity of what we are undertaking and requiring of our military. ofntain equilibrium advising, assisting, and supporting. the second is the retrograde enterprise. over the last year, general dunford and his team have had to close down several hundred basis. we started with 800 when i took a man. bases in a closed long time. we closed 500 in the first year. we needed to get down to a platform of 10 bases to 12 basis by the end of this calendar year. when you have bases with as many as 30,000 people, bagram and kandahar, the two largest.

is as muchse bases an operational commitment to keep the logistics platform relevant to the campaign as it is simply closing the base itself. he is roger grading the excess is retrograde and the excess material that has been accumulating for over a decade. when i took control, we found we had 60,000 excess armored vehicles and 100,000 shipping containers will spare parts. he has been working to move that out of the theater as quickly as he can. the third part is sending home the troops and their organizational equipment. advise, assist, and support. the retrograde enterprise. the third area is a transfer of tasks. on any given day, the isdquarters of isaf undertaking several hundred different tasks in the execution

and accomplishment of the mission of this campaign. as time goes on and as isaf continues the process of moving towards the completion of its mission, those tasks will have to go somewhere. many will be completed and that will be the end of that. a number will transfer directly to the follow-on mission. at this point, nato's follow-on mission will be called operation resolute support. a number of the tasks will to higher headquarters in europe or central command. some of those tasks will go to civilian agencies, both on the u.s. side and within the coalition. some will transfer directly to the afghans. right now, as we transfer these tasks, we will have to be careful we do not overburdened the afghans at this critical as they continue to get

their legs under them operationally and militarily. the fourth task is providing support to the afghans who have the responsibility for the security of the election. this obviously is extraordinarily important. the planning that was done, the intent was that the afghan national security forces would have the lead for the security of the election. and the police close army providing outer court in support -- the army providing outer cordon support. trying to disrupt the elegant formations as much as they can. -- trying to disrupt the taliban formations as much as they can. you enter send the troubles we have had recently in kabul. have the attacks in kabul

received a lot of attention, they did not have a widespread effect. they did achieve attention and cause concerns about the security of the city. at the same time, those attacks -- what is not necessarily understood or receiving very much attention is the activities specifically targeted against the taliban to keep them off balance and disrupt their support areas. generale final task dunford is undertaking is the task associated with receiving the force that will be coming in, supposing that the bilateral security agreement will be signed. and employee that force to the end of his mission. then begin the resolute support on january 1, 2015. remember thist to activity is occurring in an environment where the taliban is

on the attack. the taliban are right now heavily invested in both attempting to disrupt the election, the preparations for the election, and appearing to have the kind of omnipotent across the country that can shake the confidence of the population. it is a really good point and an important point that the afghan people are extraordinarily proud of their police and military. themfghan people have seen fight a very hard fighting season in 2013. a lot of casualties and they gave as good as they took. there was some ground lost but much of that ground was recovered, only redoubled the determination that the selection is all about their future. me as i surprise to have watched this process unfold over the last year and i have been in touch with afghans that this election and the outcome

and the peaceful transition of power from president karzai to whomever will follow is very important to the average afghan. process is whole underway with the taliban attempting to disrupt it as much as they possibly can. it is worth reminding everyone that the afghan theater is 400 miles inland, this is a landlocked theater in which we have been conducting hostilities and combat operations now going on 13 years. for general dunford, his team, for our civilian to my partners and the interagency, the pressures are increasing every day to juggle the many different balls associated with security. equilibrium so we deliver the afghan national security forces to the point where we want them and we have mission.e of the isaf bringing the resolute support mission in. so we have a clear transition in the post by 14 period.

will talk more about the election and the candidates. coupleamplify and at a clicks sacked before going to run again. -- i will amplify and add a couple quick facts before going on to ron. more than 85% of all total arm strength in afghanistan is afghan. the nato coalition is down to below 50,000 troops. when general allen, he had 150,000 troops. he began downsizing, about 1/3 down. now we are down 2/3. more than 85% of fighting forces are now afghan. last year, they carried out 95% of all the operations. they either let them or carry them out themselves.

this is an important point that is both sobering and tragic. took 4000 700 fatalities. the afghan army and police. 2013, twiceies in the number we suffered through the war. i know we deeply regret the sacrifice of our own men and women. it is worth noting the afghans suffered 4700 fatalities last .ear it is those lives that have been lost. it shows that the taliban is still strong. five years ago, i would have predicted it would not have been this strong. i hoped and thought we would have been in a better place in terms of having weakened the taliban. the good news is they are still fighting. they have taken those casualties and held together.

they have continued to be able to recruit and take the fight to the enemy. last point, they have been able to continue to recruit . you had not imagined five years ago that the taliban would be strong, none of us could imagine could be this strong and able to conduct core level operations. this is a reason that the afghan people are so proud of the army. , you know all the candidates. i was honored to meet with several of them with you a couple weeks ago. could you please help us understand the choice that is now before the afghan better on voter on-- the afghan saturday. and what the choice might signify in terms of who the afghans would like to see replace president karzai after his 12 years in leadership. >> thank you.

that is quite a big task. i suppose one can drown people in detail without necessarily raising their understanding too much. that important to say there are no huge ideological big dramaticr differences. ais is not analogous to liberal and conservative campaign. what you have are personalities. you have a little more detail from saun then from others. but no necessarily assurance that the detail indicates where they would go. dr. abdullah -- the other thing to say, you have got three that look like they have a chance at being in the top two.

you have got a couple behind them who are going to be important in making deals. you are going to have a lot of politics in this election after the first round of the election as people pick sides. particularly some of the second string candidates like sayyaf. as some of those people coalesce around one candidate or another, that is also going to tip the balance. and then to make life really complicated, comparatively few vote on anns will individual preference basis. they will tend to vote on the basis of community leaders, tribal affiliations. there was scholarly work done a year or two ago. comparatively few people would agree with the idea that if they disagreed with their tribal

leaders they should vote for their own preference. that was not a majority view. then you had powerbrokers who deliver votes and not voters. you have the complexity. of the big three, dr. abdullah is seen largely as the northern-western tajik candidate. that is not completely true, he has support in the east and the south. he has negatives as well because of being seen as the non-p ashtun. there is a strong belief in pashtuns, they are at least the plurality of afghanistan. they believe they are the majority, but if i excepted all the figures i have been told the country would be at least as twice as large as it is.

s think they ought to roll. dr. abdullah's father is a pashtun but he is seen as a tajik candidate. ashraf ghani is very popular in the rwest. his selection of general dostum as vice president of canada has touched raw nerves in people who -- his selection of general rashid dostum as vice presidential candidate has touched raw nerves. ghani is known to have a fiery temper. dostum. people worry about putting the two worst tempers in afghanistan -- some people consider ashraf ghani a communist.

this is a big issue in a country that was dominated by a communist government. charge may or may not be fair, it exists. has big positives, he has touched off a lot of popular enthusiasm among younger people. he also has some big negatives. he is seen as a pashtun nationalist. for tajiks will not vote him for that reason. dr. rassoul is a member of the former ruling family of the king's generation. he is a pashtun, although he hardly speaks pashtun. he was a supporter of the cane. in many ways, he is the candidate of continuity -- most clearly seen as the candidate of continuity. that is both continuity for powerbrokers, drug lords, and

criminals. it is also reassuring to afghans who are really tired of being buffeted by massive social change. constant themey through the last 100 plus years of afghan history -- resistance to too rapid change. it cause the overthrow of two monarchs and was largely responsible for the early blowback against the domestic afghan communists. it was not about them being communists, it was about them changing too much. the sentiment of not wanting a lot of change is not just about criminality. rassoul is looked at by most as karzai's covert candidate. partially because one of out ofs brothers backed the race and now backs dr. rassoul. he is also seen as a weak personality.

not quite tough enough to take on the problems of the country. every one of the three has some negatives. i guess the person i would put , a formeris sayyaf islamic leader who has performed quite responsibly in the last 15 or 20 years in parliament. hands that might not be completely lily white. it will be interesting to see how these people shift. there will be a lot of dealmaking going on. there's already a lot of negotiating. there will be more, particularly after the first round. that is probably more than enough with which to saturate people for the moment. >> let me ask one quick follow-up. three, if i'm all hearing you right, are people we

should keep an open mind about being able to work well with. the u.s. has no declared candidate or preferred canada. i assume you recommend that we not officially or publicly support anyone and stay hopeful about being able to work with any of the three. >> absolutely, there is no reason for us to be against any of the three. they are all reasonable people. they are all people with whom, relations will be much better than they are with president karzai. we should not pick a candidate ticause he has a hubris notion of which we know, but we are clumsy about when we do those things. we should stay out. and will turn to najib general allen on the same question. whatever they want to say about candidates and elections. to you ande subsequent discussion about the issue of things like the bilateral security accord.

planning for u.s. forces. keep the focus now on the elections, the choices before afghans at the polls. najib, anything you want to add to what ron said? thing i wasone really struck by. the fact that was reflected in the survey by the biggest election monitoring organization in afghanistan. 80% of thethat public have declared that they will vote independently. consultations with their tribal leaders or elders or family. it was a bit striking. ethnic, tribal, and family have a big role to play in who

to vote for for individuals. other than that, i pretty much agree with what ambassador nuemann said. -- we haveere is these three candidates. dr. zalmai rassoul , and dr. ashraf ghani. has a potential to create a problem in the first and second rounds is the big margins between dr. zalmai rassoul and the two front runners. thetwo front-runners, margin of difference between them is almost by 1/3. is way lower than the two front running. the difference between dr. israf ghani and dr. abdullah

one percent. >> 20 presenting, 19% -- >> 27% versus 8%. this is a fear a lot of people in afghanistan have. if zalmai rassoul is somehow hehed to the second round or becomes the candidate that gets the second highest number of that in the first round, will raise a lot of questions. the polls have constantly shown his low level of support. and it is highly likely the elections will go to a second round. considering the composition of the teams that we have.

, there are some accusations among pashtuns because he sided with dostum, considered to have war crimes -- to have committed a war crime atrocities. on his team, he managed to vastly increase his constituency. in the 2009 presidential elections, ashraf ghani managed of votes.around 3% this time, it is mainly because of dostum he has risen up. mainly because of dostum. nd dr. abdullah, as ambassador nuemann said, he has a lot of support among tajiks