you had the major attacks at the hotel in kabul, which looked like they were directly targeted. the attack on the independent election commission. but clearly they tried to disrupt the electoral process, and they failed. we saw this in the high voter turnout. most reports are seeing around 60%, which is almost twice as much as turnout in 2009, so what does this say? this says afghans want democracy. they don't want what the taliban has to offer. in a way it is a blow for the taliban. it puts a dent in their narrative. i am not saying the taliban is going to disappear and peace will break out tomorrow, but this will put pressure on the taliban.

it has been a blow to them. these elections should also restore a sense of optimism among americans, and it should remind us why the u.s. went to war in afghanistan in the first place, and what's at stake for u.s. national security interests, and what could happen if we withdraw troops to quickly. unfortunately, american popular support for the war has dipped considerably. some of the latest polling shows it is below 20%. i think this is because of the western media bias for reporting on violence and bad news coming out of the country, but i think it's also the result of president karzai and his

continuous criticism of american policies there despite the massive amount of assistance in blood and treasure the u.s. has spent there, but the white house has been reluctant to talk about the war and really spell out for the american people what is at stake, so i think all of these combined have led to the dismal view about afghanistan. the point is with these elections we have an opportunity to reframe the debate, and we can focus on what is right about the u.s. mission in afghanistan and what has been accomplished. i think this is a good time for the white house to be clear that it is willing to leave at least 10,000 forces after 2014 in the country, assuming the new president or perhaps a minister in the karzai administration signs the bsa. our u.s. commander in afghanistan general dunford has said at least 10,000 forces are necessary to advise and train

afghan forces, and i think the white house has favored a smaller u.s. footprint, which may appeal to american domestic opinion, but it really carries a risk of failing to meet the minimum requirements of the afghan forces. it is vital that the u.s. partner with the afghans to prevent the taliban resurgence for many reasons. first, this election and continued u.s. engagement with the country is particularly important for women and ethnic minorities, unlike when the taliban ruled the country and prevented women from going to school, let alone participating in the economic and political life of the country. one of the election candidates had a woman on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate, and early results are showing 30% of voters were women, so this is a remarkable a compliment for women.

-- accomplishment for women. second, preventing a taliban resurgence is fundamental to combating the global terrorist threat. we have seen the impact of the u.s. completely withdrawing forces from iraq, where al qaeda had made a comeback. i think this should serve as a warning to the u.s. on the risk of leaving afghanistan too soon. i would simply say if we can afford to have ready thousand -- 30,000 u.s. troops stationed in korea 60 years after the war ended there, surely we can afford to keep 10,000 troops in the country from which the 9/11 attacks originated. third, we must consider the blowback effect of the taliban resurgence on pakistan, a nuclear armed state. i think ambassador samad is correct when he says this election also puts pressure on

pakistan to reconsider some of its policies, and i think certainly there are people in pakistan who realized the increasing threat from the pakistani taliban, which coordinates with the afghan taliban, and more people are realizing the blowback impact of supporting the afghan taliban for so many years is certainly hurting pakistan now, so hopefully, this election will help push the needle in pakistan more toward a policy of cracking down on the taliban on its side of the border.

if the taliban reestablishes its influence in afghanistan, not only does it offer the opportunity to provide al qaeda safe haven, but also the many other terrorist groups that operate from the region and share the same kind of ideology, and i am talking about the islamic movement of whose -- uzbekistan, which poses a threat to asia. groups that focus on attacking india. even china is growing increasingly concerned that afghanistan could become a safe haven for uighur separatists. in early march, terrorist attacks civilians at a railway station in the city of kunming in china, leaving 20 dead and 149 injured. china blamed the attack on uighur extremists, and quickly followed up saying beijing will work with the international community to fight terror in afghanistan.

clearly, what happens with the taliban in afghanistan has far-reaching consequences not only for the u.s. but for all the countries. there are several factors that will determine whether afghanistan will indeed become a stable democracy in the coming years. the credibility of these elections was critical. i think we have some good news, but also the issue of how soon the u.s. withdraws its forces from the country plays a role in whether afghanistan will be successful. i would only say the afghans have risked their lives to show they are committed to democracy in the country, and we should back them by leaving a substantial presence and continuing to fund and train the afghan security forces. now is not the time for the u.s. to give up on the afghan mission. instead, we should use this opportunity to reinvigorate our commitment to the country. thank you. >> thanks, lisa. i do want to open it up to questions from the audience.

i think that you have cards, and they need to be delivered to me. maybe i will ask the first question while those are being collected. then we will open it up for your questions. thank you so much for your comments. i am just going to throw a question out for a quick response, and then i want to open it up. what happens if this becomes a very prolonged process and we have a second round and things are not decided for many months? what would be your advice to the white house, to members of congress about how they should be talking about it, how they should be approaching it? what's the role, what's the message of the u.s. during a sensitive time in afghanistan?

ambassador, can i start with you for your quick thoughts about advice for u.s. policymakers? thank you. >> in case there is a prolonged process and no definitive results, it's incumbent on the international community as a whole and the u.s. in particular to be patient. i do not foresee a very prolonged and arduous process, but the possibility exists. i would say for all the reasons the other panelists gave, whether electoral or strategic or policy driven, there is no need to rush. there is no need to make decisions purely because of

domestic pressures. afghanistan, as history has shown, especially the history of the post-soviet period has shown, when the soviets left afghanistan, the country was sort of left to its own devices and ended up becoming a failed state, and the failed states and it ended up becoming a hub for terrorism. we all know the story. we have -- definitely given the conditions that exist in the region as a whole, we definitely cannot afford to rush to judgment and make a decision that is in haste. >> jed, lisa, do you have anything to add to that? jed, do you want to start? >> it wasn't that long ago we

dealt with that exact scenario in 2009 and in 2010. in 2010, the parliament was seated almost a year after election day. i think we all hope that won't be the case again. the message needs to be clear that ultimately it's for the afghan people to decide whether or not the electoral process meets their standards and whether or not they can respect the outcome of the process. it's really important that space be provided to the independent election commission, and the independent election complaints commission to conduct their work independently and impartially, which as you know was part of the question, and there was great focus on the karzai administration in 2009 on alleged foreign interference. the worst thing we can do is fall into that trap again. whether that is reality or simply perception, we certainly want to avoid that.

>> i want to add that the u.s. should be patient. there's a lot at stake, but the reality is there are some constraints when it comes to the bilateral security agreement and whether or not the u.s. needs any troops post 2014. i think the u.s. has shown as much flexibility as it can on the issue, and the real question is whether the nato countries can show the same amount of flexibility, because they are not going to commit any troops until the u.s. signed the bsa with afghanistan, and they are under constraints in terms of meeting time for planning and -- needing time for planning and logistics, so yes, we should be patient, but at the same time, if afghans want to see a true presence post 2014, i think there are some constraints in that regard, and if it goes much beyond the summer, i think we're in real trouble in terms of the

u.s. ability and politically with the white house, the desire to lead troops after 2014. >> thanks, lisa. i have a question from the audience. i think i'm going to turn this to you, ambassador. could you comment on the quality of the top presidential contenders? what do you foresee in terms of their vision moving forward? >> we started out with 11 who went through the first round of electoral qualification testing. they had to meet certain criteria, and they did. over time, three of them decided to drop. we were left with eight. finally, the common understanding was that there were three contenders and the person of the former world bank,

professor of johns hopkins, the minister of finance, and also in charge of the transition that took place, the security transition that took place with the international community. then you have dr. abdullah, in the anti-soviet period and the anti-taliban movement, as a civilian assistant and advisor, and then turned minister of foreign affairs in 2001 and then left government in 2006 and became the opposition leader in 2009 and decided not to go into the runoff. then you have the foreign minister and national security advisor who came from the former

kings camp in rome and was associated with hamid karzai and considered as the person probably closest to hamid karzai and probably someone who has his blessing. i think the preliminary assessments made over the past 48 hours show that they seem to be heading the pack. that mesul is trailing, that he may not be able to go into the second round. i am speculating, but this is based on preliminary results that we see. either there will be a runoff all the way to the end, or that in between there will be a political arrangement.

a coalition would be built, a government of national unity would be formed, and they will agree on sharing power. the other question is with president karzai leaving office and seeming to want to exercise some level of influence in the future and have a say about afghan policy in the future, whether he will be given -- how much space will he be given, and in what area, and whether he will be satisfied or not, but regardless of whether karzai is satisfied or not, what is important is we had a first round. the afghan people had a chance to go to the polling stations and deliver their ballots, and there is no momentum to a second round.

-- now momentum to a second round. the responsibility is on the shoulders of the commissions. as well as other related mechanisms that exist. they have to do their job as openly, as transparently as possible, in order to make sure the track the afghan people have shown and the risk they took on saturday has some type of results that is acceptable. no one is looking for perfection here. no one is looking for a totally flawless election. -- fraudless election. we are looking at an election that would have enough credibility and enough acceptance with the afghans and with the international community. >> thank you. lisa, i am going to turn a couple of questions to you. two big questions, and let's see if you can have a go at it.

the first question is foreign affairs recently published an article where someone made the case that the asf was a great threat because of the risk of a coup. how likely do you think that scenario is? the second is on a totally unrelated matter. i want to get to a bunch of these, and that is on pakistan. the sharif government has said they have taken a stance of noninterference. we saw some in the press, some reporting there was cooperation with border closures and other matters taken by the pakistanis. how concerned are you about pakistan continuing to influence in unconstructive ways throughout this process and beyond? let's leave it there, and if anyone wants to comment after

lisa, but i do want to get more questions. thanks. >> i think the issue of whether there would be some kind of coup, i am less worried about this now. i think the question six months ago was if you had a really divisive election, breaking down along ethnic lines, a lot of bitterness and animosity, and the worry was that that would reflect within the afghan security forces, and you can have a rupturing of the unity of the afghan security forces, but we're not seeing that happen. i would argue we are seeing the opposite, that nsf has shown that the asf has protected the people. it was not as bad as we feared.

there will be allegations of fraud, but it doesn't look anywhere on the level we saw in 2009. it is a more orderly process. that lessens the concern about any kind of coup coming from the nsf. on pakistan, again, i think that pakistan has sort of been waiting and watching. they have been focused on their own taliban threat. there was talk of the taliban military going after their havens in north waziristan. there were some airstrikes, but not the federal operation that some people expected.

-- full-on operation that people expected. they were engaged in a dialogue. there has of course been some reporting that they convinced the pakistani taliban to go in for negotiations so that this operation would not happen and disrupt their ability to keep fighting in afghanistan. so, clearly, you know, i would not say i have seen a fundamental shift among the pakistani military to crack down on the taliban, however i do think that this election will make them, you know, think twice and consider their policies moving forward. first, the blowback. they know that if they have a comeback it will have a blowback on the pakistani state. second, as we said, the afghan people have spoken, shown their support

for the mock receipt. -- democracy. they don't want what the taliban has to offer. this will have to factor into pakistani planning for the future. >> great, thank you so much. question on the economy. feel free to jump in at any moment. the question is -- what are the prospects for sustained economic growth? we have turned a corner with the election. or at least we are at the beginning. we talked about the unsustainability of the state and the nsf and the need for continued funding. what are the prospects for the afghan economy to become more self-sufficient? thank you. >> it is a good question, actually. there has been so much focus on the past year or two on the security and political transitions that we are in the midst of. not enough attention has been paid to the economic transition that afghanistan is to undergo.

i was in kabul a few weeks ago. you could clearly feel that people were anxious. that businesses, small businesses, not talking about the larger ones, but the smaller businesses are hurting as a result of it not being signed. that sense of uncertainty, that sense of not knowing what might happen, it has an impact on economic life of the country. now, if we have a successful political transition and we have new leadership in the country that stays calm, which is what most people now predict, then the business cycle is going to pick up again. again, you are going to see normal sort of development taking place in afghanistan, which has been positive overall. now, business in afghanistan,

the economy overall in afghanistan has relied to quite an extent on foreign aid money. and a large amount of assistance that has come into the country over the last 13 years. that is going to shrink. we all know that. the afghans are ready to adjust. hopefully, they will be able to come up with new ideas. but they are looking forward to enough stability and security in the country to be able to implement all of these big projects that the country relies on so much. whether it is in the mining sector, which we all know is very promising, whether it is agriculture and business, whether it is turning afghanistan into a transit hub in that region of the world, building infrastructure, so on and so forth. the prospects can be bright. it all depends on political stability and security.

>> thank you. another question from the audience here. what sort of bipartisan coalition is there in congress to support a unified front backing afghanistan? is anyone here aware of a congressional effort to support this? on the congressional side? takers? is there anyone in the audience who knows? oh, this may be a task for someone there to start mobilizing people. i am going to turn and ask a question to jed. at this point, we have to be patient with what is taking place in afghanistan over the weeks and months. how concerned are you about the sort of independent organizations being used in

political ways? how much of a concern is this? >> i think it is a real concern. so far we have not seen indications that we will not act independently or be impartial. but if history is any indication, in 2009 that was one of the key concerns about the independent election commission. their impartiality. particularly in the scenarios that i spoke about earlier. if one of those were to become true, you know, the independence is critical. the impartial work of those commissions would be critical. so, i think it is a real concern. at this point there have not been indications that the commission will not act independently. the closer the results are, the

more pressure those commissions will be under. before you asked what the message should be. what the u.s. can do. it is one of the key things that can be done, to support those commissions, the independence and impartiality of those commissions. >> i am going to ask another question. are there more questions from the audience? we only have a couple of more minutes, but we would welcome them. if there is a disputed outcome or a highly contentious second round, do you see the international community or the u.s. playing -- would you think that there would be a role for the u.s. or the international community in providing a kind of facilitating role among candidates? to help them reach a deal amongst each other?

or do you see that kind of facilitation as dangerous to kind of the negotiations among afghans? >> i do not see that possibility in 2014. i feel that the 2009 experience, on all sides, has left everyone somewhat sensitive. and worried about perceptions. so, i believe that none of the afghan teams, candidates, and tickets, or political heavyweights, will come forth and ask for the u.s. or any other country. what i do see is maybe, maybe, under strict conditions, if things are about to get out of

hand, there may be a role for the u.s. to play. play as an arbiter. that would probably be the last resort of engagement in the process. >> well, i think we have run out of time. i want to thank the partnership for a secure america and the alliance in support of the afghan people. thank you so much to our panelists. thank you very much. thanks to everyone for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next "washington journal," stefan hankin and us for aconway join

look ahead to the midterm elections and 2016 presidential race. we will examine the latest developments in ukraine with kurt volker. and a look at congressional salaries and other benefits that members receive. " -- liveon journal every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. a few weeks ago on "the communicators," we had the executive vice president of comcast to talk about a proposed merger between comcast and time warner cable. this week joining us is senator al franken,