[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up, a preview of today's presidential elections in afghanistan followed by a marine corps future with general james amos. testifying on the budget for the u.s. and foreign operations. let's take a case which got a $1.9 billion settlement levied at them. there was the deferred

prosecution agreements. laundered as much as it hundred $50 million for drug cartels. minorly did they commit financial and technical infractions, we are talking about an organization operating at the top of the illegal narcotics pyramid. this is a major criminal enterprise. they admitted it. they did not fund it, that is on then. that is a failure of the regulatory system. they were in league with truly dangerous and violent people and the worstem out with kind of behavior that a band can be involved with. nobody does a single day in jail? that is outrageous.

it is even more outrageous when you look at in comparison with who does go to jail, people at the very bottom of the illegal sellingamid, people drugs. they go to jail for real-time, five years, 10 years. at the same time, they were living hsbc off. taibbi sunday night. next, a previews of today's elections.idential they also talked about the future of u.s./afghan relations after president karzai. posted by the alliance in support of the afghan people, this is one hour.

>> thank you so much. thank you for coming here and those of you who may be online. to very happy to be here discuss this upcoming election in four days time in afghanistan. be election day in afghanistan. with thee seeing impressions we have and the news out of afghanistan is that there is mounting enthusiasm in the population, across the board, not just in one area or another. even in the south and eastern parts of the country. much more enthusiasm than fear or trepidation.

the election process overall, by attacking soft targets mostly. the reaction of the afghan people overall through afghanistan, there are many of those these days, is one of the science which to me is a very positive sign to see the afghan people give a very strong message to the taliban. in what peoplepe are saying about the election process. they are forward to change. they are looking forward to better governance. they're looking forward to more rule of law.

they're looking forward to a more unified government that couldn't deal with the challenges that afghanistan is facing. this is a country that has had a very troubled history and a country still facing many challenges on many run. improvementamazing that we see on a daily aces and that kenneth and. myself joinedke in the government in december 2001 and was a witness to what we inherited. it is quite clear that the glass is half over there has been german this change. work be still a lot of done. people are looking for a government that can tackle this. optimismmuch more

since his this is an. . the focus has been mostly on the u.s. and mr. karzai. it has been mostly on one person. now we're listening to the afghan people. this whole election process has to freelyportunity express themselves and come out and support one candidate or another. make demands. come out and challenge them. tell us what to do. this is absolutely very healthy.

i think the media has played an incredible role in all of this. we are also seeing a generational shift in the sense that more and more young people who have grown up during the past 13 years and are now young men and women looking forward to a new afghanistan and at an age to vote on one hand. but also their participating. this whole sense of participating and dividing your future and expressing you well are what we are seeing over the last few weeks. i think elections are going to take place unless something catastrophic or unpredictable happens over the next 72 hours or so. which i hope it is not. but election is going to not be without challenges or problems.

let me go likely over the challenges facing elections. first, there is going to be a big turnout from all indications. the first afghan election in 2004, we saw over 70% participation which is pretty incredible. there is by all accounts a momentum building up toward that kind of figure right now of 60% to 70% probable turnout. including many women and the youth participation as well. obviously, we are also seeing long lines of people after today -- up to today, this moment and across afghanistan, of people who are waiting to get a voter card. despite when he won or 22 million voter cards floating around in a country with 11 to 12 million eligible voters, there are still long lines of men and women in kabul and other

cities who want to have access to a voter card which is an indication of the building up of enthusiasm among the population. there is a question of how many people do they represent. overall, it does show a trend. that people are engaged and that there are front runners. i am not going to go and actually decipher that because it is very complex. fraud, obviously everyone is anticipating fraud. but no one

desires industrial scale fraud in afghanistan. i think that what we are looking for is an election process that can have credible results acceptable to most afghans and not leading to any type of -- resulting in any type of crisis. there may be some people the satisfied. apparently that is the norm with elections. there will be some people who are unhappy with the results. the desire is for all candidates to at some point come to terms about -- with the results and the anticipation is for the election process and institutions to play their role according to the laws and regulations of the country.

the burden of proof and the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the election institutions. the -- they have a responsibility to make sure that the results of this election are as fraud-free as possible. i just want to spend one moment by telling you what in my view would define and constitute a successful election. versus a failed election. first of all i think that barring any surprises between now and election day, the level of turnout is going to be very critical.

the larger the turnout am a the better it is for elections. the better the afghan security forces plus international forces can contain the attacks and trying to disrupt the election process, obviously the better results we will get. the afghan forces have tried and at a very good job so far of containing and of repulsing the taliban attacks. just this morning there was a very interesting piece of news that said the taliban suicide bomber detonated his explosives within a taliban leadership meeting, killing 26 leaders who were appearing for major attacks. this person was either dissatisfied or something happened.

i do not know any details but it does show that on one hand they are planning heavily and on the other hand there is within the taliban some tension and people who want to disagree with what they do. what else can make this election successful, there is the issue of fraud is the issue of fraud as a mentioned. the more we can mitigate fraud, the more we can control fraud. and the more credible results. what would make results credible and acceptable to the afghan people and what would make credible results to the international community who is on standby keeping a low profile. that is also going to be very important.

at the end of the day i think that if these elections can result in better governance, a leadership that is more unified and further unified the country and can deal with the challenges facing the country, including restoring relationships with the national community and the u.s. in particular. signing the bsa and keep following up on the promises made at the summit in chicago and tokyo and in bonn. the relationship that afghanistan will have with the international community. i think that these are if we can have a good election, these are the results that we will see over the next year with the new government. the reverse of all of this of course is going to probably result in failure of elections or postponement of elections or delay in the results coming out of elections and probably in a crisis.

i do not personally see afghanistan entering a conflict situation. i do not see civil war erupting. i do see local -- a political crisis in case large constituencies of afghans aren't happy with the results of elections. but all indications today .2 relatively successful election happening on april 5. most probably moving to a second round if nobody gets the 50% plus one required by the constitution. and also most horribly and i will and on this note. there would be many attempts made, many backdoor, backroom deals made over post-round one to come up with a consensus on election leadership.

meaning that there will be attempts made by the lead candidates to reform the government with national unity act: russian government that could strengthen the pillars of governance in the future. i will stop here and hopefully you'll have questions later. i will turn the floor to mr. hadley. >> good morning. i want to talk about three things. election monitors, i want to talk about what we can hope for out of this electoral process and i am worried about how we are -- how we got to where we are.

first, the issue of international election observers. there is obviously been some recent violence. it has caused some of the international organizations who plan to send lection observers not to do so. there has been suggestions in some media reports that this is a real blow to the credibility of the elections and i think that is a misunderstanding of the situation. it is true that the national democratic institute and democracy international have scaled back their observer missions. and that is a blow.

andy i was going to provide about 120 of what was expected to be two hundred international observers from five organizations. that said, there still will be international observers on the ground. democracy international still has a specialized long-term observers that are in the country and will remain in the country. the european union and the osce also have observers that will be present. the numbers will not be great, but that is not unusual. pakistan recently had an election which was widely viewed as successful. it is a country of 180 million. there were only i am told 60 international election observers at that election. afghanistan is a country of about 30 million people, proportionately, it will have more international elections -- election observers. but more importantly, the international observers will be working with approximately 15,000 national afghan observers. deployed around the country by two afghan observation groups, the largest one is the free and fair election foundation which was founded in 2004 and has

observed every afghan election since. they currently have 10,000 observers registered. the afghan observers have been trained and funded by the international community. they will be the real eyes and ears on the ground and they will be sharing the information and their observations with the international observers. and will be part of the foundation for the conclusions that the international observers will separately reach on the elections. in addition, each of the major candidates has their own election observers so this is going to be tens of thousands more. and finally the afghan media has gained significant capacity for recent years as many of you well now. they will be following the

elections as they have been following the campaign. the most critical part of the electoral process is the tabulation of the result. the inserting of the vote counts from each of the polling stations into the central computer system. that will take place at the independent election commission headquarters in kabul and it will be observed by the international technical teams as well as afghan observers. the absence of the international observers or what i should say is a drawdown in the number of international observers that will be present. we will have a psychological effect and it will have an impact on the international -- how the international trinity views it. i am not trying to gloss over that fact. the truth is it is not going to make a huge difference. there are enough international

observers there to do their job and the real story here is this is an afghan election. being undertaken pursuant to afghan institutions. and afghan observers are going to be the first-line of defense in ensuring a good election. second, good election. obviously we would all like the process to be as free and fair and without fraud. elections are hard to run. we have been added 200 years in our country and we still generate a fairmont of controversy. we cannot have too high a standard here for days afghan elections. the bottom line is going to be whether the elections process gives a result. that a broad and representative segment of the afghan people believes to be credible. part of that will be the electoral process.

and how much fraud people feel is there. but the real question is whether this electoral process, flog though it will be, will produce a legitimate outcome. an outcome accepted by the afghan people as legitimate and will produce a government that the afghan people will support, for which the afghan security forces will fight and with which hopefully at least some of the taliban will be willing to negotiate. i think for the comments that the ambassador made, there is a pretty good chance that this process will produce that kind of outcome. finally and then i will turn it over to michelle. let's not forget our fertile we have come. two years ago there was a lot of discussion about the political transition that we are now in

the midst of. you are -- may remember all the speculation at that time. there will not be an election because karzai does not want one. he wants to stay in power after 2014. the election law will not be signed. the independent electoral commission will not be fleshed out, will not be ready to operate. the people will not be engaged. they will not -- they will not be crippled candidates. a lot of skepticism and whether violence would make the election possible really at all. we can all agree that we are at a place, much better place than most of us would have expected two years ago. and we may actually have a pleasant surprise here sunday and monday. >> thank you. i want to make three quick points before we open it it -- up to questions. just to reinforce what has been said about how we judge the

outcome. i come at this from a u.s. policy perspective. what kind of outcome should we be looking for and i do think it has already been said. the key issue is does this election process writ large ultimately result in a government that is seen as credible and legitimate in the eyes of the afghan people. there may well be some fraud, there may be some violent. we hope not. at the end of the day when all is said and done, do the afghan people feel that this is a credible and legitimate outcome. if the answer is yes, that should have a number of implications for u.s. policy but i think we should not judge the afghan elections by the same standards that we judge our own elections. we have had 200 years of

democratic evolution. this is a democracy in its infancy. if this election does produce a credible result it will be the first peaceful handoff of power in afghanistan history. we want to be careful not to rush to judgment ahead of the afghan people. it is their judgment to make whether the ultimate outcome is legitimate and credible. i do not think we want to be second-guessing that issue at every step along the way. i think it is very important to let this process play out. the other thing that is clear is u.s. officials from a western officials from many isaf countries have had multiple discussions with all of the candidates. i think they have had a very

clear message. there are a lot of stakes involved here. if the election outcome is legitimate and credible. afghanistan can expect the international community to actually follow up on its lenses of its continued assistance and that assistance is critical to the ultimate success of the next afghan government. by contrast, there is rampant fraud. there is a failure to negotiate the representative outcome, etc. you could see the political report in the united states and other countries for continuing to provide assistance to afghanistan. you can see that support plummet. there are s that would put whatever government ultimately resulted in a crisis situation and fighting for its arrival.

and so i think we have been very clear about the stakes involved. i think all of the candidates understand that and hopefully, that will influence their choices and how they approach this contest. my second key point is that the results of this election will move us into a post-karzai time of u.s.-afghan relations. it will be a very important turning of the page. it will be the start of a new chapter in our relationship. one where i hope we can get beyond focusing so much on one personality and the challenging aspects of that personality. to a relationship that is based on a number of profoundly shared

strategic interests, strategic objectives and so forth. i think if we do get a legitimate outcome, there will be a lot of -- there will be a positive opportunity to not start fresh because we obviously have a lot of engagement and history with afghanistan but in the chapter that i think we can rejuvenate the relationship in some very positive ways. lastly i want to say word about the potential impact on the post-2014 military posture. as you all know, we have been -- the u.s. has negotiated with afghanistan the terms of bilateral security agreement that would allow for u.s. and other -- others to stay beyond 2014 to assist and advise and

train the afghan forces and to conduct joint counterterrorism operations. this is very important as a foundation for afghanistan's up kerry and stability going forward. i think if the elections go off successfully, i think the likelihood is we would find ourselves in the second route. we could see a new government coming in in the summer perhaps. maybe as late as the fall. all of the candidates have pledged that they are interested. they intend to sign a bsa. the relationship with the u.s. is very important to afghanistan's future. i think we could see that moving

forward but my main point here is that no matter the time delay, we have to make our decisions about our future security investment in afghanistan. according to our strategic interests. not based on the timelines associated with our planning or our logistics. it may will be harder and more inconvenient to reshape the fourth two 24 at -- a 2014 posture. the more and more delays, it will certainly be more difficult. that does not mean that we should not do it. even though it is incredibly difficult. we have a stake in the stability of afghanistan and the stability of this region. and while the afghans have -- should be greatly applied for having stepped up to be in

charge of security, they still need our help in terms of training and equipping and advising. and to support any government that is legitimate and credible that rises from this process. let me stop there. >> let me follow up on that issue. the ambassador was saying that the u.s. has played a little profile. is that because you have confidence that whoever comes next will sign the bsa? >> my reading is that the u.s. has not wanted to be a party to the elections in the sense of skewing the results in any way or putting his thumb on the scales. they want to make it very clear that this is the choice of the afghan people and as long as

there is a legitimate, credible outcome, the u.s. will be supportive of that afghan government. that is as it should be. >> [indiscernible] only in terms of what is perceived. is there going to be a perception issue or is there some threshold that officials will be looking to? >> again, i cannot speak for the administration but my own view is that certainly the first metric is how is the outcome viewed by a broad based representative sampling of afghan society and is seen as

credible and legitimate? it may take some degree of negotiations to get to something that looks like a national unity government. i think that is the first and most important thing. i mean, obviously i think the u.s. will also look at issues like the degree of fraud. like the degree of violence. the degree of effort friday and so forth. the number one and most heavily weighted metric in my view should be how does -- how do the afghan people see this election and outcome? >> am i picking up that you think you might be very adds even go to a funeral but haven't some negotiation between the two top vote getters? you have a judgment as to which will produce a more credible government. a true run off a negotiated settlement of that. fix it is not obviously for us to decide. there has been a real effort among the 11 candidates. over the last year. to try to develop a common

program for post-election afghanistan to which many, if not all the candidates are the least rhetorically committed to providing foundation for a kind of national unity government coming out of the election. whether it goes one round or two rounds, i think that is a positive indication of what they think the afghan people want. and i think from an american standpoint, that would be a very good out -- outcome. whether it emerges after the first round or after the second round but an outcome where the candidates accept the results of the election. that the broad segments of all elements of afghan society seem to accept the outcome and it leads to a national unity government committed to a common program.

that is a pretty good outcome. >> a delicate dropped out saying it would not be a fair second round. that left people -- it settled on karzai but it was not any kind of resolution or agreement that this was a credible outcome. >> i will make a comment over to the two of you. i do not see that likely. what you may see after the first round if there are two contenders is they may decide to form a unity government right there. and obviate the need for a second round. not because one of the candidates has taken their marbles and gone home but because they have agreed on a common program for the country. that is one of the things people are talking about. that is for the candidates and the afghan people to decide.

>> i just want to say that first of all it is absolutely crucial to have elections take place and to have the first round. number two, i believe that the example of 2009 is not going to be repeated. i think that the likeliest scenario is for the two top contenders in the second round to try to come up with a formula that is acceptable. not only to those two camps but also could maybe incorporate other contenders who have lost to the extent it is possible. trying to come up with the government of national unity in afghanistan is a complex situation given the social and political status of the country. therefore, it would require more than just two contenders in my opinion, trying to come up with the national unity government.

it might involve others as well. obviously it will take a lot of political tact and foresight and hard work to be able to come up with such a solution and the afghan people, after having voted in the first round would probably support such a scenario. emerging. >> i have nothing to add. >> is there any danger that we would end up with a mishmash of government under no clear leadership? >> the top two will have sort of a mandate. it is a question of again representing afghanistan's

diversity. appealing to all stakeholders. but not in a way that we have seen, not in the fashion we have seen over the last 13 years where since the bonn conference in 2001, certain positions have been allocated to certain strongmen. i think this time around you will see more professionalism, a different set of criteria forming a new government. >> thanks for being here today. we are talking about afghanistan being on the cusp of a political transition. at the same time there is a lot of skepticism about whether it will be up true political transition and whether karzai will retain some degree of power after the election. especially given his ability to control state resources during the election.

the campaign period and the iac and ecc. i want to ask how confident you are that karzai will actually had power over a non--- in an authentic way or this is a real possibility that he will continue especially if there is [indiscernible] whether he will continue to wield power in a meaningful way. >> please jump in whenever you want. it is -- this is a real concern.

it is a valid point on the mind of all afghans as to what extent is mr. karzai going to try to influence the outcome of elections and whether he has a preference which to some extent is now visible. he may have a preference in one of the candidates. to what extent is he going to use his position in the government institutions to boost and bolster that particular team. i do not have an answer for you because we have to wait until elections take place and we see the results and how this is going to unfold. but to the minds of afghans, who want their vote to count on that day, it would be very disrespectful i think to every afghan citizen if they feel that their vote did not have the weight it is supposed to have. mr. karzai is acutely concerned about his legacy and about his place in history, that he will

refrain from manipulating the elections. as i said, a certain level of manipulation is expected. we are just talking about the level of manipulation that is going to be difficult to swallow. and for afghans especially. and so in that case, i think that he will damage his own standing with the afghan people and it will not help the process and it will not help anyone. it will probably lead to some kind of crisis. >> if that manipulation was on a grand scale to the point of changing the outcome, -- outcome of the election and if that were to become known, i think that would have a serious impact on the ability to muster the political support for continued assistance to afghanistan long-term. the stakes are very high. and pursuing a strategy like that would really be playing with fire in terms of the risk that you would actually undermine long-term international support.

>> i also think -- let's look where we are. and give him his due. many people thought he would not step down. that he would not respect the constitution. he would find some way to hold onto power. that has not happened. many people thought he would try to ensure the election process was chaotic so he could -- people would turn to him and ask him. many people thought he would try to add 19 his successor. maybe even a family member. that is also not happening. he is -- has not explicitly endorsed any candidate. we will see. he has performed at her than a

lot of people feared and hopefully he will understand that his best legacy is to say that he presided over the first peaceful transition of power through elections in afghanistan's history and that will cause him to stay away from any manipulation of the process. >> thank you. is it your sense based on candidates who appear to be leading that there's a good chance that relatively -- a relatively moderate person could end up bleeding afghanistan as the next leader? there were many fears early on of warlords and radicals competing. do you feel like this is -- these are fairly moderate folks who are going to lead? >> i think if you look at those, the apparent front-runners, they

could all be seen as not only moderates but people who understand that to govern effectively and legitimately, they will have to whatever the equivalent reaching across the aisle among reaching across many miles. they'll have to bring in supporters from other camps. even if it is not a negotiated national unity government between two candidates. even if it is one clear winner to really be credible and legitimate. their cabinet is going to have to be highly inclusive and representative to be able to govern effectively and in the eyes of the afghan people. i think all three of the top contenders understand that as a fundamental principle. >> the top three, we all know them well. we have all worked with them well. i would be comfortable with any of them.

>> you mentioned that we are seeing a new chapter in u.s.-afghan relations. i was wondering if you could expound on what you think the u.s. policy should be going forward. let's say that the election goes well. that there is a new government down the road and the bsa is signed. how should the u.s. move forward with its policy and how could it improve relations? with afghanistan because they are at a low right now. >> i do think that we need to root our policy in our strategic interests as i said which is ensuring that afghanistan does not slide back into civil war and does not once again become a safe haven for terrorism and so forth. ensuring that afghanistan does not become unstable itself and destabilize the region and so forth.

ensuring that the tremendous investment and sacrifice we have made and the progress that we have seen as a result of that is not just thrown away. i think going forward the relationship is going to change because the nature of our mission in afghanistan has already changed and we are already, the u.s. and nato are out of the combat role. that happened last year. we are stepping back into and advise and assist role in terms of the security realm. the afghan forces have been in the lead and will continue to be in the lead. they have done a very good job being in the lead and it will only get that are as time progresses but they do need our help in advising them and continuing to build specialized capabilities, continuing to

equip and train them and so forth. they need several years of that to be truly independent over time. so i think we want to stay the course in my view. and also, that should include our economic assistance. both are coming down from the peak of the war period. continuing with the hummus as we have made in tokyo, and before, that is important to give a new, credible legitimate government the chance at success. a chance at developing the economy, the society, their own natural resources to the point where they can be even more independent in the future. that is my own view. >> i think we are moving towards a time of more normal relations. in car you and

not thethe u.s. is right posture for this election in terms of not interfering. would have been that i think we could have done more to create a less fearful environment by making clear that 2014ll some posts president there as long as the election results are credible. hope that you will put together the government.

i would hope the new president would come to the united states, meet with the united states congress, thank the american people for all they have done to help the country where it is now, offer his plan for where the country is going, and what he would like america to do to support that plan. and start rebuilding a bipartisan consensus that this afghan project has been important for america and it's worth our continued support. i think if a new leader does that, i think that bipartisan support can be rebuilt over time. >> if i may add to this, that from the afghan perspective, it

is very clear now after the pronouncements made by parliament in afghanistan, civil society, candidates, that they are eager and they do value the relationship with the u.s. and international community. not just because of aid that is needed in afghanistan, but because of everything that has happened over the last 13 years, we've shared so much together, and blood and treasure and so on and so forth. there is one expectation of the international community and the u.s. that hasn't been met fully, and i think has been a thorn on the sigh of mr. karzai and the relationship with the u.s., and that is how the u.s. and the international community is going to deal with the real issue of terrorism and radicalism in the region and especially what is happening and what exists beyond our borders, the safe havens and the role that pakistan can play.

so i think that is going to continue with a new afghan administration. they will continue to expect the u.s. and international community to play a more positive and more robust and more constructive role in trying to bring more stability to the region. and that will require probably a new strategy. >> my question is for both the speakers. you just mentioned the security interest that the united states has -- how much importance do you think the the manner in which these elections go ahead has vis-a-vis the continuation of u.s.-afghan relationship post 2014?

do you think the support should -- for the continuation of support? >> i think that we are a democracy, too, and our democratic process means that any administration has to go to the congress to get funding for its initiatives. and the bottom line is that our congress cares very much about the credibility of the governments that we provide assistance and support to. so i think even if you could make a real argument that our security interests dictate support no matter what, the reality is that if the elections are fraught and seen as it legitimate or disaster, that will undermine political support here for the assistance that afghanistan so needs. >> it's not that we're imposing criteria. what michelle is saying, it is a political reality here. but i don't think one should be too concerned about it, because

the political reality here requires exactly the kind of afghan government that the afghan people want themselves to come out of the election. so there's a complete alignment of interests between what we would like to see in order to insure politically we can continue to support and what the afghan people want to see in order that it can lay the foundations for the future.

so we can have this conversation, but in a way it's not really material, because we're both pulling in the same direction. >> a question for michelle. i said you think that who ever wins the election will -- you see the process of forming a government could take quite a long time. from a military planning point of view, when does that really have to happen to have proper plans in place for next year? >> well, from a military planning point of view, military planners will wish that the b.s.a. was already signed months ago, that's when they would have liked to see it for an orderly process. my point is that as much as i understand that desire to for, you know, clear timelines and such, we shouldn't allow that to trump our strategic interests. and i think the truth is that i believe if you have a legitimate credible government in place, you could possibly, you know, hopefully you'd get a b.s.a. very quickly, but if you were really up against the deadline for withdrawal under the current

mission, we do have an existing status of forces agreement that we could use to extend our presence with the permission of the afghan government or the request of the afghan government while we're finishing up, you know, the b.s.a. process. it will be, so i think it would be messy, it would be difficult, it would be challenging from a logistics point of view for the u.s. military. but it could be managed, i believe. for nato it's harder, because many of our nato partners who do want to stand alongside us and stand alongside the afghan people, in the case of some like germany they have to go back to parliament for a separate, a new piece of legislation that gives them a new mandate, and so forth, so that will take some time. that means the risk is that there will be, you know, there would be a dip in the

international presence for a period while those steps were being taken. and before nato countries could necessarily conclude their own agreements, pass their own legislation and then come back. and we don't want to see that. so i think aiming for the b.s.a. to be concluded as soon as possible with a new government i think is still the right objective. but we shouldn't allow these timelines to undermine what is in our strategic interest. >> amen. >> i have a question about things you all have said about what the afghan people want or, you see there was more enthusiasm than trepidation. what's the data, on what basis

are any of you all say what, how the afghan people are actually feel about this process? i'm just curious, is this polling, what is it? >> yes. there have been surveys conducted. i mean, i can point you to surveys that have been conducted over the last several years, and each and every one of them shows the majority of afghans being more hopeful, having actually more trust in their government than we think they do, having definitely a lot of trust in their security forces who have done an incredible job with the help of the international community, in stabbing up. and today 350,000 afghan police

and army including 11,000 women in the secure forces are going to be securing the polling stations on saturday. in addition to a few thousand international forces helping them. and you see also a strong belief, and you see this now on the ground every day through the media, by looking at each gathering of each candidate rally brings out tens of thousands of people in the most remote parts of the country, in areas where people thought that security is pretty bad. every single day. that is going to end tomorrow. and i think it's an indication that people want to participate, that they want to send a message, both to their leaders and their future leaders and to the supporters. and to me as an afghan, again, i'm comparing this over what i have seen in my country over the last few years, before that during the soviet, the taliban

time, you cannot deny the fact that there is enthusiasm. and that there is a willingness and an eagerness to continue this path and want to go forward and not backwards. >> i guess for me it would be the limited conversations i've had when i've gone to afghanistan, but mostly there's a community now of 30, 40 people in washington who spend and continue to spend a huge amount of time in that country. and what they've been saying for a number of years is that in their conversation with afghan's people have complained about the exclusiveness of the government and the sense of impunity of the government and that they want to take their government back, that there needs to be a political reconciliation not just with taliban, there needs to be a political reconciliation with all elements of afghan society who have felt excluded.

and that, everyone i know who has spent a lot of time in -- tr restarting that national reconciliation that afghans talk about wanting to have. >> anymore burning questions? we will wrap it up here. thank you, and thank the panelists. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a look at an article by "usa today."