in the country was not acceptable, if you are talking about the country that is seeking european association and professing the the west and european values. what has happened in the ukraine was absolutely against anything that would be compatible with the goal of the ukraine becoming a country sharing and supporting european values. even today, we see that happening and there is a reminder every day of how difficult things are in this country and is going to be difficult for a significant time. then was the government came by force to power and not everybody in the

country were joyful about that. many people do not share the goals of the group of people who .ook over especially taking into account that the first steps the government took were to ofroduce the abandonment russian language and culture in the life of ukraine. at the same time, there are nationalistic forces they came to power at that time and insisted that the ukraine needs to be for ukrainians. prohibitive in the ukraine. finalou, in the

proposals, i understand that the reason for this is not only and thesapproval european partners of the ukraine and, hopefully, the united states, certainly made it known the values of a democratic state would not support this. governmentstablished sent a signal. ukrainee parts of the are russianhat speakers. for them to speak their language and teach their children the

language to maintain the culture that they have associated with is important. the were threatened to have ukrainepart of the rejecting everything. people in crimea and the east were not accepting the forceful overthrow the government. trying tornment was impose on them the values they were not sharing. , i willpened in crimea remind you, there was a referendum where an absolute --ority -- a total majority a majority of russian speakers and everybody in the ukraine is a russian speaker. whether it is in the east or west.

historically, being part of this , they wanted to get the russian federation. if you want, at some point, to describe the history of the country, they voted for forpendence and voted requesting russia to except them as a partner. russia did. part, people did not ask for independence. somewere talking about extended a dog may. -- autonomy. complained that they

induced a national wealth tinyal and get back only a portion of the money they earn for the country. redistributione of what they produce in this part of the country. autonomy tomore protect the ability of people to speak russian and run russian schools. fromthey saw in response the newly established acute -- government was threats. happening. was they were threatened by force to

-- they were called terrorists. that is difficult to understand. people are still in houses and were defending their way of life where they had lived. they were called terrorists the government and separatist. and wanted a time to meet it was negotiated between them and the government. said to people is that and elsewhere we need an all inclusive dialogue in the country. the problem is, it was something that was included in the so-called agreement that was reached between the opposition and the previous president of the ukraine over the settlement

of disputes. a peaceful summit. february 21 with european countries, france, germany, signingwitnessing and the draft agreement on the plan to reach a political settlement. things,ded, among other inclusive dialogue on the future of the country. it never happened. they never did it. idea of national dialogue included with the united states and europeans in geneva. it was april 17. it never happened. the dialogue was conducted on the future of the country. force andhe use of

the threat of force. forces on those who did not agree with the government, the more they created volunteers to fight against them. people were protecting their way their land. that, togetherg with the cessation of violence that is important, it was almost achieved by two consecutive meetings and agreements. it was between the ukrainian government and the leadership of the opposing forces in eastern ukraine. and, the cease-fire, by and , except for aking

theer of places where ukrainian armed forces still blame their own people -- bomb their own people and civilian populations. even in the outrageous situation of october 1 with the school .ear starting usually, and russia and the ukraine, the school year starts september 1 will stop it started october 1. at the moment of opening classes, they bombed a school. luckily, they have not killed children will stop they killed teachers. and, it was done on the backdrop .f the agreement to cease

is difficult to agree to what the opposing forces implemented. we are hopeful. we understand it will be difficult, especially after 3.5 500 lives lost in the country and many others wounded. many destroyed completely because the forces of the launch rocketsing systems against cities. systems, or those who know something about military not knownes, they are to be designed to be precision oriented. enormous services with destructive power.

so, what is happening? secure thisg to agreement and i am embarrassed that, today after the meeting inween our foreign ministers beis, they both seem to confirming the commitment that they see that the agreements in lamented and i am still hopeful -- are implemented . and i am still hopeful that we will move to more normalcy. it will certainly take a lot of time and a lot of effort to make the sides talk to each other and agree on how they want to live together.

to decide.hem not for the united states or for us. having said so, i would like to address, once again, the russian-american relations. we came from different positions for this issue. -- united states shows to chose to pressure. pressure,n terms -- in terms of isolating russia in the international arena. not workable. we hear less about isolating from thed more secretary of state about the need for russia and the united states to work together on the challenges that we face, .ncluding isil also, economic treasure. something that is discussed in the united states and russia.

do not like the idea of being under pressure. we run some difficulties and economic development because we are integrated now in the international economic life. it is no longer the soviet union that was holding a set of economic instruments. it is a country that is why the integrated into the international economic sphere. we have developed relations with the european union and our regional trade is about 400 million -- $400 million a year. , your trade yours with the european union is about $500 million a year -- billion dollars a year. very much comparable.

time, the quality of economic relations with the united states is significantly less important and developed. today, the figures i will give you for trade between the united states and russia was $38 billion both ways, according to the statistics. billion, up 42 russian statistics. the statistics differ because people are trying to hide something. .e count things differently our statistics include direct trade and yours included traded through third parties. 29, 39, itanother,

is miniscule. it is less than 1% of the overall foreign trade of the united states. i river last year -- i remember last year. there was a drop of in trade by 2%. has anybody noticed? our trading is less than 1% of your trade. the united states did not appear moste 10 most economic -- important economic partners. was greater than the united states. that, in turn, shows the overall relations between our countries have never achieved a level of real intertwined partnership.

and there are a number of other .mportant countries what i am suggesting is that, under the current pressure we see it applied, our trade this year does not seem to be dropping too much. year,ght months of this there was a drop of half $1 billion. monthscompare with eight of 2013, there are real business is still interested in working in the markets with each other. that is certainly good. i have spoken with a number of american companies who are very successful and are willing to continue to be successful. we have a number of success stories here and a number of

russian companies have invested in the united states. we have one company, to name a few -- one is enormously successful. business inmakes providing you with the best industrial tubes in the world ,hat are used for shale gas shale oil production, and helping you to compete with us in the oil market. before they joined the american market, they were number three or four. now, they are number one. we have political difficulties. greater andhey are sometimes, less so. at the same time, there are a lot of interests and the rest of

the world. or, in relations between countries that can and should bring countries and business people together. something we want to happen, we believe that political to the coal these should not make businesses hostages. we believe that russia and the , ifed states can do a lot we work together and not against each other. at the same time, we are ready the basis of equality and mutual respect of interest. certainly, significantly more positive ways of addressing concerns. missingg that is still in relations.

at the same time, talking of sanctions, i would be remiss if i did not tell you that certain sanctions do not help. if you listen to the debates among russian economic ministers , of russian business people course sanctions do make financial borrowing for investment more difficult. the united states is not the only place where money can be found. we also have money and our country and we also have a number of partners who trade with you. who some countries in asia are interested in russian markets and are looking for opportunities in the market where there are voids of presence by russian companies

what is the most important is that russia is part of the extended european space. not formally defined. , prettyal terms economic desk solid economic standing. i brought some numbers that i found interesting and i will try to help you understand what russia is, economically, and what is not. for example, in 2014, the economic growth of pressure was very low under russian aspirations and standards. prior, we had endured consecutive years the growth --

of 1%.the growth 0.5%. to compare with france, significant economic modeling in -- borrowing in europe, 0.4%. germany, 1.4%. today, they report they run a risk of recession. is a significant drop in gdp in germany. side.is on the negative spain is 1%. unemployment in russia is 4.8%. compared with france. 10.3%. germany, 5%. spain, 24%.

i try to compare with countries with significant economic and what iseurope we run a is that it at 2.5%preface for us this year. 4.5%.nce, it is minus it is only 1% in germany. italy, minus 3%. in spain, -5%. currencyke the reserve and the gold reserves, we enjoy $455ves today of about billion. france, $155th

billion. $200 million. italy, $150 billion. spain, $42 billion. --m suggesting that, he suggesting that, irrespective of microfficulties, russian economic development is pretty solid. have any significant foreign debt. you, i think, the debttate th ssia

is 10% of gdp. try to remember how much you owe as a state. you compare with your gm. -- gnp. in germany, 77%. all other european countries are in a worse position on this issue because we have run economic development in a withrvative just conservative policies on the usage of budget outlays to promote the stability of the economy. -- difficult challenges come, we are better prepared than a number of other countries. also need to say that we

levelt satisfied with the of our economic development, sanctions or not. difficultiesggest that we are still haunted with is the curse of a country being so original with gas. it is something that provides and, atant components lacks theime, it incentives for others to develop industries. been part of a program to diversify the economy and to build an economy that would be less dependent on that and more using technological capabilities that we enjoy.

the abilities of russia are significant. what is still missing is the ability to put it to the market needs in an efficient way. that they approach are trying to do now. they are less successful than had been hoped previously. i would say, returning to assumptions, that there are difficulties that create opportunities. because of the sanctions, there is a significant drought among business people and neighbors andare in russian markets that is 150 billion people -- withillion people developed abilities to pay for the groups and the services they

get. and, -- we are working in order to create incentives for companies that would be building our own products that we currently import. and economicrisis pressure that the united states and some europeans are in shows us that you cannot rely on current circumstances. the instrument of development is shaky because it appears to be vulnerable to political decisions.

also, and somewhat disappointing fashion, shows that the united states is asnificantly less reliable an economic partner to us than we had expected. also, together with diversification of the economy, are working to diversify economic ties and we are working with asian countries. we are asian. people forget that. we are there. economicignificant we wouldin asia and have, in doing this, irrespective of sanctions -- but under sanctions, we understand puttinghat working and

more emphasis on developing economics with countries serves our long-term interest. that is not to say we want to abandon cool operation with the west. in no way. we are interested in developing it. is ine learned that, it areas where economic interests seem to be bringing us together. example, a wonderful project we locked with the u.s. and companies that developed oil was put at risk because of political reasons and his agreements. case, we aree better served by diversifying capabilitiesore on that exist in russia. we walked him. so, that is where we are.

we are backate if in the cold war, i would hope not. we inassure you that moscow are not interested in another addition of the cold war. we want normalcy restored in the relations will stop based on mutual respect and partnership. be open for questions and answers. thank you. [applause] you -- >> wek thank you for the positive view of russia today. we certainly share your interests and long-term bonding between the states. the floor is open for questions

and there are microphones on both sides. you toldime ago, george bush that the was not even a nation. is that still the position? i would like you to elaborate. >> i am not sure that i can confirm the quote you are referring to. and, what is important to a nationd is, what means. of course the ukraine is a nation. we have a you lot -- we have a lot of ukrainians. historically, the ukraine developed in a difficult way because, as a country with its --rent foundries that exists , it has tothat exist do with the composition of the soviet union.

it was part of the soviet union. riordan to that, during hundreds the current ukraine was divided between the polish partnment and the eastern was largely part of the russian empire. -- speaking the same language, they developed because theys eastern part is orthodox and the western part is a mix. currently, what is happening in ae ukraine, they are forming well-established nation and we hope that they will do it in a peaceful way. >> ok. >> the microphone on the left, please. to askme warn eveone

sue saint questions -- assis succinct questions. >> [indiscernible] second, the breakup of had states recognized by russia. kosovo's membership to the -- united nations. what principles are russia defending now? taken by force and that was the big problem. there was very

difficult history at this time. kosovo was -- you have roots kosovo was part of serbia that the serbs considered to be holy. anduse of the historical other natural processes, the grown andpeople has they felt they became the majority. they have a problem with the serbs and the serbs had a problem with them. -- and,e was a lot of afterwards, a bombing campaign. if you asked me whether the serbs did everything in the best way one can do it, i am not sure.

war, i saw after the the devastation the bombing campaign brought. it was not self-determination. forceful process of taking part of a country and that is how we see it. we have our american friends and others. we are not accepting the legality. the issue was brought to the court in the hague. ae united states presented there isgesting that no international violation of law because international law does not regulate the process of

self-determination of peoples. the united states position that was laid out at the hague was significant and different from what we have seen so far afterwards. professor will stop >> you have touched on a number of subjects. would you describe for us the number and role of the russian troops in the ukraine has been in the recent months? are no russian troops in the eastern ukraine. [laughter] >> you laugh at that. no matter whether you laugh at that, there are no troops in the eastern ukraine. [laughter] >> i am suggesting there are no russian troops sent to the

ukraine. they are russian citizens there. we know that. on the other side, we know there are citizens from other countries and there are a lot of indications of this. and thele were fighting ukrainians,ine, the probably, you have not seen reports of the events. i see it each and every day on russian tv. you look at the faces of the people fighting and they are not even universally young. they are people who come from all walks of life. some of them have military background from soviet union times. servedople have

interact. -- in iraq. there are people who know and do it professionally. >> good afternoon. faith is worldwide. i just want to make a statement, and you don't have to respond. >> what are you going to speak of? >> on matters of holy matrimony, may russian orthodox church and the roman catholic church meet, pray we invite, and able to schedule some religious classes so to enhance their religious skills of some of our very own united states supreme court justice? thank you. >> i understand it's more a statement rather than a question. and it saves me, because i'm

not religious myself and it's difficult for me to give any educated view on this issue. next question, please. >> you mentioned before certain issues on international law and i was wondering if i can ask ou, what does russia see developments or problems in international humanitarian law or the law of armed conflict and where if anywhere do you think there should be any changes in the law in this regard, or do you think the law should stay as it is? if i could get the russian perspective on this issue. thank you. >> well, that kind of question requires another lecture. and certainly a better specialist on the law. i'm not a lawyer. the humanitarian law and the is of the warfare, i think,

there and has to be at least fully complied with. here, i would -- i cannot but once again return to the situation in neighboring ukraine. 'm surprised sometimes watching cnn or other american channels reporting on the situation, and comparing it ith what we see in russian reporting. and even, we are biased, you are biased, sometimes i have a eeling that we see different planets. what is missing here in the states surprisingly, with all the claims of object tivities that the western press is

is ing, the trust is that happening in the eastern ukraine. there are mass graves discovered there. civilians killed in an the most ate way by powerful weapons the military has. there are lootings, cases of lootings. in this part of ukraine we see as active fighting force the so-called volunteering battalions. the status of those is largely misunderstood because they have sometimes no status. so what you see the armed forces, the real armed forces shelling these cities but these people entering the ettlements, and when they left

if you hear people who survived this with beatings, stortturs, some of them are video recorded, i'm surprised -- it's st century in a country that aspires for european membership. yes. >> mr. ambassador, your comments relative to the ethnic russians and ukraine, i also think parallels those that could be made for georgia. every nation that was previously part of the soviet union has a large ethnic russian population. taking those comments and earmarks trap lating them out, that gives you cause to mettle in every country's affairs that border russia. how do you respond? >> i will respond very simply.

it is not true that we are meddling in the affairs of other countries. we do have a number of other countries where the russian population is well represented. take kazakstan. do we mingle in the affairs? kazakstan is one of the most trustable partners that we have. we just signed an agreement ere to create the euro-asian union. look at bulla russian. are we mingling in the affairs? look at the balingtics. are we millinging in their affairs? we sometimes speak out when we see the nazi reglorified in these countries. do we mingle in their affairs? it's something, the statement based on very, very

preconceived notion of what russian policies is, which i cannot agree with. >> i point to this because you're not close enough to your microphone. > i apologize. >> thank you for your answer. and time will tell. >> thank you very much. yes, ma'am. >> thank you mr. ambassador. between the mid 1990s and until recent years there were many thousands of children adopted from russian orphanages by u.s. citizens. that's now come to a stop. i'm interested in knowing whether there's any movement in reopening international adoption between the united states and russia. and i'm also interested in knowing whether russia has made any progress toward adopting the hague conventional and intercountry adoption. thank you. well, first of all i have to

apologize i do not know exactly where we are on the hague document. but i will look up and if we have a chance i will give you an answer. , n it comes to the adoption i do not see anything happening in russia that would bring it back, and the reasons are very simple. we saw a number of cases here in the united states where kids were ussia were abused, tortured, some of them lost their lives. some would say, oh, that's statistics. look at the kids in russia. they also get killed and tortured sometimes by their parents. true. look at the american statistics how much cruelty towards minors is happening in this country. it's human nature. the difference being that

russian kids here in this country are unprotected. we were trying to bring the state department and even the justice department to work with when we ue the cases saw russian citizens and remind you these kids are russian citizens. they also get american citizenship the moment they cross the border but they continue to be russian citizens. and wherever we are trying to help justice to be soid -- served, we were very much left alone at best sometimes we saw that the sentences that were ven to people were unjustifiable -- unjust fyably

mild. we also felt that if you compare the punishment that people would get for torturing a kid of american origin would be significantly different. all of this was very much a concern to us. we have been -- had been ising it with american colleagues so many times. but we largely were getting a response that the federal government cannot do much because these issues are regulated by state laws. which we also learned the hard way, and i will tell you that e had a case where there was a legal procedure against one family that was believed to be abusing a minor from russia and i sent a legal expert from the embassy just to be there and to

hear the proceedings. he was kicked out of the room. and when he said that we had an agreement with the united states that provides for legal help and, in pursuing such cases, he was told that you do sign agreements with the federal government -- work with the federal government here in this state we work based on the state laws. so what we saw was very, very unfortunate and with the largely good statistics for many kids that had been adopted here -- and i will tell you that i've met many american so much ho commend respect and are wonderful people who give the heart, their lives to the kids they adopt. at the same time, on this backdrop we saw cases that were

absolutely outrageous. i would add to this that we saw kids adopted not only by the u.s. citizens, we saw it in spain, in italy. by the way, i think it's italy now the largest country that adopts kids in russia. but we have never had a single case of this type in this countries. there was some reported case recently of abuse i think it was in italy or spain, i do not recollect, but they were fully operating with russian law enforcement, and their law enforcement was very, very forceful. that was the main problem that we have encountered and i do not see any movement to econsider the decision the

>> we did get a late start. >> two more questions. >> first, the gentleman here from the naval academy and then you, ma'am, after him. >> thank you. good evening. my question is with the advent of the war on terror it has become clear that no country can stand on the sidelines. that russia has had trouble of its own from chechnya, that it's also been plagued with violent extremism. so basically in the modern world today with isis forming in the middle east, as you say we have a mutual interest and a common enni in these groups that seek to destabilize these groups. why has russia not signed on with the middle eastern partners to help us with the coalition and give us naval or air assets to help combat isis in the middle east? >> a couple of points. [applause]

even before the united states decided to start building coalitions -- and you remember, you were thinking for about three months or two months -- aircrafts upplying together with specialists to train iraqis on this issue. you were thinking, we were working. so we have been in contact with the iraqi government. we have helped and we continue to be working on these issues. whether we wanted to do it within a coalition or outside as a self-sufficient country i think for the time being we can do a lot on our own working with the people. which doesn't mean that we are going to be on a colligs course with the united states or the coalition that it helped to

create. but sometimes you also need to think about some political connotations where people here in the states compare russia and eyesle as almost comparable challenges to the united states and you want us to be in coalition. it doesn't go well for, in political terms, thinking about that kind of formations but -- on substance. and that is the most important. we are trying to be helpful. we have been helpful. and as i said already today that the ministers, yours and mine, who met today in paris, seem to have been in agreement a common challenge that we need to work against. >> i understand that a large part of improving u.s. and russian international relations is to improve understanding of

the actions we do in order to encourage our ideals. so in matters of the ukraine, according to the u.s., took the wrong side but according to us, a legitimate government is based on the views of the people. so can you please define to me what a legitimate government is in your terms. >> what legitimate government is? >> yes. >> where? in ukraine? >> within russia. >> within russia. >> yes. >> within russia? the russian government is the government that was appointed y legally elected president. and approved by legally elected parliament. that's the procedure in russia. we are a presidential republic. not exactly the same way

organized as the united states but significantly more with more accent on the parts of the president than for example in average western european countries that are largely parliamentary. so in russia, the president has the power to appoint. the prime minister. the prime minister goes to the parliament and seeks approval by the parliament. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i thank you for your patience and your questions. thank you. [applause] on behalf of everyone i thank you for what was on many levels uniquely informative. thank you very much.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014]

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the institute of peace. i'm very glad to have you here

joining us. we are very pleased to be able to host senator carl letch. senator 11 has been -- senator lev yin has been a strong supportor of the united states institute of peace. in 1981 he was one of the cosponsors of the legislation that established the institute of peace. and in 1984, one of the bills out of his can he the defense authorization act in 1984 was signed by president ronald reagan and established the institute of peace. so here we are 30 years later. very pleased to have senator levin join us. senator levin has visited afghanistan many times most recently in july before that in organized the office in kabul. he organized a group of people

for the senator to talk with and share experiences with. i was talking to several of the senator's staff and they said that was an extremely useful session that we organized for senator levin in kabul. he was there as he will describe at a time when the political crisis was still real. he had something to do with having conversations with both sides of that crisis, the political focus at that time was intense and the senator played a major role. secretary kerry followed up. and we know that story. today senator lench will give is remarks -- 11 will give his remark. steve hadley, who is former national security adviser and knows something about afghanistan during his time during that period, will moderate the discussion that will follow the comments. so without anything further let

me welcome senator 11 to the podium and steve will join him afterwards. [applause] >> first, thank you for your warm words. thanks for the invitation to oin with you here today. i as a matter of fact had a very wonderful visit with your folks in kabul when they did brief me very helpfuly on the situation there. i won't report secretary kerry your view that i kind of led the way with discussions and he followed up and cleaned up after me. i was delighted to meet with the two candidates both of whom by the way i have great respect

for, both the new president and mr. abdullah both. i just think that -- i'm glad they came together. it was essential that they come together. in a government of unity. ut it was -- i think they were lucky, afghanistan was lucky to have two people as qualified as they are and as willing when the crunch time came to come together. when i met with them, i guess it was now a few months back, i told them that, what they needed to do was to be as brave as their toops and our troops and the coalition troops and that they needed to be politically brave if they were going to work out a solution. this is during a period they were counting ballots and recounting ballots and re-recounting ballots. like chicago actually is. that's a joke, an inside joke, by the way. nobody from chicago likes.

it was very ut tense, it was a very tense moment. but the fact that they were able to pull it off, come together for the good of their country and show in a political way the kind of courage that the troops of afghanistan and the coalition forces have shown to make it possible for there to be an election and then to have a resolution which, under the circumstances, was as peaceable as you could hope for. again, i am very appreciative of the institute that helped to brief me. we appreciate the work of the institute in many, many ways. you've worked hard to find the wisdom that can lead to peace, e kind of wisdom that sparky mathening a that talked about

in his famous comments when he said "we need more owls, not more hawks or doves. " that kind of puts it in one sentence. it was a well-known comment and sparky was really beloved in the senate. but today i do want to focus on afghanistan. and i will have a few remarks on another subject after i spend a few moments on afghanistan. now, i'm somebody whose hopeful about afghanistan's future because of the progress that we have helped bring about there in the last several years, and i'm hopeful because of that recent peaceful democratic transition of power which is a first in afghanistan's long history. the transition offers increased reason for optimism that we have an essential ingredient for success in place in afghanistan.

perhaps the essential ingredient. and that's a unity government whose goals are in harmony with our goal of a free, peaceful and unified afghanistan with strong security forces and honest governance. afghanistan faces immense challenges from taliban terror, from corruption, from poverty, from ethnic and political tension. but the progress that the country has made is also immense. too many people forget what afghanistan was like before coalition intervention in 2001. even in major cities, access to food, clean water, and employment was extremely limited. women were barred from attending school. working outside the home. or even leaving their houses.

unless accompanied by a male relative. medeival rules were enforced by armed thugs using public executions and floggings, television music and the internet were banned. and today, by contrast there is vibrancey in afghanistan society. in just one decade life expectancy in afghanistan has increased by 22 years, infant mortality or child mortality is decreased by 62%. decreased by 62%. under the taliban there were just 900,000 students in school , all boys. now student enrollment is more than 8 million including about 3 million girls. in 2001, afghanistan had 20,000

teachers, all male. today there are 200,000 teachers, including 60,000 women. universities are sprouting up, including an impressive and inspiring american university in kabul. the afghan security forces have exceeded our military commander's expectations, successfully responding to taliban attacks and safeguarding two rounds of elections. the taliban threatened to prevent the peaceful transition of power in afghanistan but failed spectacularly. the afghan people support their security forces, now about 350,000 troops strong. i've always believed that our principle mission in afghanistan is to help establish afghan forces so they can protect its people and

their hopes for a free nation. that is the taliban's worst nightmare. one of my earlier trips to afghanistan when i asked a group of village elders whether they wanted us there, their spokesman answered, stay until you have trained our army. and then leave. and some day we will welcome you back as guests. afghanistans how have hope for better governance as well. as the president and chief executive officer have resolved their differences over the election and formed the unity government, we have seen in iraq where the maliki's regime 's pursuit of a sectarian agenda left the nation vulnerable to the poidsen of isis that when leaders choose narrow political aims over the common good of their people they can do immense harm. the fact that the new afghan

government's first official act included the signing of security agreements with the united states and nato and the reopening of an investigation of the kabul bank scandal gives the afghan people reason to hope that the nation's new leaders are more interested in building afghanistan's future an in pursuing partisan or sectarian or corrupt agendas. the progress that we and our afghan allies have achieved in afghanistan has been built on adherence to a number of important principles. first, the value of broad international support for our military efforts. second, the value of training local forces willing and able to defend their own people. third, the value of pressing for unified inclusive governance. that is the value of a government worth fighting for.

fourth, the value of setting limits on our own military involvement in order to incentivize the development of domestic military and government institutions able to stand on their own. now, while public opinion polls show the afghan people think that we've accomplished much, and are glad that we came, polls in the united states show that americans believe our involvement in afghanistan has failed. former secretary gates has made the pungnt point that the afghan war is the first that he has experienced -- the first war that looked better closer up than at a distance. i believe the american public's failure to understand what we have accomplished in afghanistan is due in large artto the constant, almost

totally negative portrayal of events in the american press. the press understandably reports on negative events. a taliban truck bomb in kabul does make a more dramatic story than a million girls going to school. but it would be tragic if this negative focus deprived the american people, our men and women in uniform and their families, of a sense of accomplishment that they deserve to feel about our effort in afghanistan. and the relentless negative focus of the press could have a serious negative effect on afghanistan's future. for two reasons. first of all, it could dampen the willingness of congress to continually support afghanistan. if the american people think we

failed and that we've wasted our resources, it's less likely that congress will do what we should do, which is to be steady and constant in our support, economically and otherwise, for afghanistan. but there's a second reason. and that is that, while afghanistan's gains have been impressive, they remain reversible. afghans continue to fear that the united states will abandon them, as they believe we did after the soviets left in the early 1990's. the afghans have assumed responsibility for their own security and for their own political affairs. but they continue to depend on international funding, training and institution building, in particular for sustaining the afghan army and police. the economic life of the country is far more vibrant than it was under the taliban but it will

take years for the afghans to develop a sustainable economy, and they won't be able to do it without substantial economic assistance from not just the united states but from other allies and other members of the coalition. and so if the public continues to believe that afghanistan is a lost cause, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. simply put, if we don't understand what we and our coalition partners have gained in afghanistan, we risk losing it. we've accomplished much, along with our afghan and coalition allies in bringing more security and stability to that country and preventing it from, once again, serving as a safe haven for terrorists, who would attack us and others. and while much remains to be done, i believe if the afghan people remain united and if we remain constant in our support of them, that afghanistan will take its place among the

achievements of which our nation an be proud. before we move on to questions, i want to touch briefly on something that congress is going to face when it meets after the elections. and that question is whether we should vote to authorize the president to use military force against isis. in my view, the answer is clear. we should. the poisonous ideology of isis is hostile not only to the region but to the world. and there is a real risk that the area that it controls could become a training ground, then a launching pad for future attacks against the united states and our friends and allies. isis is terrorizing the iraqi and syrian people, enslaving minorities, attacking schools and hospitals and ultural sites.

but if the fight against isis is to succeed, it must be visibly an iraqi and syrian fight, an arab and muslim fight, against an internal cancer and not be perceived as principally a western fight. though some have sought to minimize the contributions of arab and muslim nations in the battle against isis, the open public participation of those countries is sending a powerful political signal to their populations and to the world. we have a unique opportunity, at this crucial moment in history, to bring the world together, to confront a common violent enemy. our role should be to help bring together a broad coalition in

support of a unified iraq and a moderate syrian opposition by training and equipping them for the fight. and as part of a broad coalition with a strong, visible support of arab and muslim countries by providing air power that the iraqis and syrians lack. boots on the ground are needed. but they need to be iraqi and syrian boots. i also believe that we should seek to establish a delineated buffer zone, along the turkish border, in order to protect civilians, a zone which would be secured by turkish boots on the ground, if turkey is willing, protected by a coalition no-fly zone. both things will be necessary for turkey to consider turkish boots on the ground in that part of syria, along that border,

there must be a no-fly zone that protects that buffer zone. and we should surely consider doing that and seek to do that. so, yes, congress should vote to support the president in this effort, because it will be destructive to our drive to unite the world against isis if congress and the president appear disunited. we should vote, because president obama has organized a broad coalition that includes most critically arab and muslim nations who are public and open participants. their publics know about their participation. i do disagree with those who argue that the president cannot act without an express authorization to use military force. and that's really the other question. should he, should we --

should we vote on it? the answer is yes. if we don't vote on it, can the president act without that authority? and i believe the answer to that question is also yes. the president has the authority, under article 2 of the constitution, to act where necessary to defend the united states, and indeed presidents have used military force overseas on dozens of occasions. and have received congressional authorization only a handful of times to do that. so in the last 25 years, we have engaged in air campaigns to enforce a no-fly zone in iraq, to end the bloodshed in bosnia, to bring about a serbian withdrawal from kosovo, and to protect civilians from gaddafi in libya, all without congressional authorization. congressional support would strengthen the

international fight against isis, but the united states should continue in this effort with or without a vote on a resolution to authorize it. again, my thanks for the invitation to be with you this morning and for the work that you do. now i'd be happy to try to nswer a few questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to start off with some questions. we will then throw it open to the audience. and we will have mics that will be brought to you. so let me begin. mr. chairman, there was some reference to the agreement that secretary kerry negotiated between now-president ashraf ghani and ceo abdullah.

you were, of course, there before. you had, i think, a catalytic role in achieving that agreement. one of the things, as i understand it, you emphasized to the leaders was to need for an audit of the election results. and that became a part of secretary kerry's compromise proposal. that audit has now been completed. what is your assessment of how that process went and how the electoral process went, putting aside the agreement now reached between the two leaders? did it achieve what you had hoped when you made that recommendation? >> i think it achieved as much as could be expected. you're an old hand in washington and i think you understand the necessity of reaching practical agreements. and there was a practical agreement reached at the end of that audit, which is that the result would be announced but not the numbers.

and that was essential for an agreement to be reached, for all of the internal, political, psychological reasons that drove t. and so even though ideally, on paper, if we were teaching a civics class, we'd say, well, of course you announce the results. but that was not a perfect election, to put it mildly. there obviously had been fraud on both sides. and in order to have an outcome which was acceptable, which both sides could subscribe to, there had to be that practical resolution that the result would be announced, as to who won. but because the numbers, no matter what the numbers were that were announced, would create problems, second-guessing, third-guessing, fourth-guessing, they had to

agree that the result would be there, and that the numbers would not be made public, because they are very mperfect numbers at best. in terms of the powers that were then going to be in the ceo position, that is another practical resolution, which both sides could sign up to and which, i think, helped pull a nation together. it's almost miraculous -- i think people look at merica because of the negative view, the negative way in which the press has treated afghanistan, they view something as a failure or don't view it at all, in the case probably of the question you asked, but it really is quite extraordinary. that outcome is really an extraordinary outcome, that they could agree not just on hether

or not to announce the numbers, the votes, and the ballot count, but also that they could share power and propose -- i guess it will be to -- it's sort of within the culture of afghanistan that they were able o come together. and when you compare that to what's going on in iraq and what maliki left in his wake, the contrast is huge. it is a contrast which is very positive in terms of afghans. they can be very proud that they were able to come together after a bitter election campaign. >> it is remarkable, and i think a lot of afghans felt they needed a unity government, if they were going to go forward. they now have one. it creates sort of a practical challenge for people in the administration and in congress, when they go to

kabul. and it's a little bit reminiscent but not parallel in any way, but when the president was made president of ussia, and putin was then prime minister, there was the old question, so who do we deal ith? do we continue to deal with putin? do we deal with the other one? the decision the obama administration made was deal with the president. now we have sort of an analogous but quite different situation. so who do we deal with? who do you deal with? do you go to ghani? hat is the sequence? >> that's not unusual. by the way, that's true in many places in the world where we obviously deal with both. but the sequence is that they elected a president, and it's important that we obviously deal with both. they're both powerful figures.

one was elected president. and that's the fact of the matter. and i hope that both accept the sequence. but i think both understand the necessity that both be very deeply involved in discussions and hopefully agree. we have a sequence problem in this country in a sense too. i don't know if anyone looks at it that way, but we're not very good at compromising these days. i don't think we can lecture people with too much power about the importance of compromise. we don't have a lot of ground to stand on in that. so it's with some -- you know, we ought to have a little humility. first of all, we ought to congratulate them on what they've done, because it is really extraordinary. but secondly, i think, refrain a little bit from being too self-righteous about the need to work together. we could probably follow their lead these days instead of vice versa.

>> it is a remarkable achievement, what they have done in terms of the election and the unity government. as you know better than i, there's a lot of fatigue in the united states with afghanistan, compounded by, as you made clear in your remarks, the sense from the media that it's not been a success but it's been a failure. so americans, i think, are going to ask the question, is afghanistan still important to us, the united states, and if it is, how do we rebuild the support within the country and within the congress for the fghan project? >> the afghans have helped a great deal in their agreement and their unity government agreement, in their taking on the kabul bank again, that issue. and working out a bilateral security agreement, with us and with nato, to the extent the american people have focused at all on those issues, and i doubt

that too many have. but nonetheless, the extent they have, i think they'll be reassured by that. the bottom line, i think there's a lot of fatigue in this country in just about everything. that means leadership has to lead. if you've got people who are kind of heard it all, tired of the election, tired of politics, scared about ebola, worried about isis. i mean, just go down the list of things that happen. it's where leadership becomes more and more important. and that means hopefully that there's going to be greater unity in this country, particularly in the area of oreign policy, by the way. we have fallen short. i, again, want to avoid being too partisan. but there's been a real shortfall after bipartisan foreign policy recently. i come from a state where we had a famous senator who helped truman, you know, not just win a war but win a peace.

and he was an isolationist, as a matter of fact, this republican senator, before the war. and he became somebody who really became an internationalist after the war and helped truman win nato and helped truman get aid for turkey and greece and a number of other things that were so important. we have fallen away from that recently, and there's not been enough, i think, enough critique of the falling short of that goal of having politics stop at the water's edge, that is so important in this country, so important to our success. and so i would hope somehow, even if the battles continue on the domestic front, over health care or over the budget and all the other things, that

somehow or other, there can be a coming together more in the area of foreign policy. >> let me press you on that, because you've been in the senate now over 30 years, been a real student of washington. how do we get that back, since the media seems to push us to the extremes? the electoral system now with so many saved seats, republican candidates fending off challenges from the right. democrat candidates, challenges from the left. it almost seems like the divisions have been institutionalized in our politics, in our media. how do we get it back? >> it's going to take leadership, people who are willing to sit down together, just the way leaders have until recently, and work things out. it may be just a matter of getting through an election -- this election, and hopefully then there's a new environment.

but given the fact that probably -- probably a heated presidential election is next in line, just two years away, which is like two minutes away in terms of political time, i think the odds are against it in the short-term. it's going to be a fortuitous combination of leaders. and for whatever reason, who see it in their political interests to come together. we're facing sequestration. i don't want to get way off the suggest. you know, these mindless across-the-board cuts, which nobody who voted for them, that i know of, thought they would ever take effect. and they cut into just about everything. and they're mindless. it's not a way to budget. we all know it. whether you're liberal, conservative, democrat, republican. 80% of us, i think, say it is crazy that we are now going to face in january and february another round, the first of three or four more rounds of sequestration. it affects everything, including whether we're going to

support, as we should, afghanistan's recovery. and so will we be able to find a course to deal with that hreat? that ought to be doable. that is a budget issue. and we've got our deficit -- our deficit is actually coming down to a level now lower than they were when president obama took office. we ought to be able, in a better budget environment, to avoid these additional threats to some very important programs, everything from education, infrastructure, to national defense. maybe that would be the way, if that needle could do be threaded, that one budget needle called sequestration where everybody says they hate it just about. not everybody, 70%, 80% rail against sequestration.

democrats and republicans, on my armed services committee, just rail against sequestration, including me. you know, i've laid out a way to avoid it. i won't go into it here, because it isn't in the right setting, but i've laid it out publicly. maybe after an election, in the lame duck session, our leaders can see it's in everyone's interest to do that. and that maybe could set us on a better course. >> you mentioned in remarks kind of a conversation you had with some afghan elders. and they said to you train our security forces and then leave, and we'll welcome you back as friends. obviously the training of the security forces, enabling them to take more responsibility for the security of the country is critical. you followed it now for a long time, on the armed services committee. how are they doing? and how much more help do they need from us? and the question a lot of americans will ask, for how long? >> they're doing well,

better than we expected. i think they protected the elections. i don't know of any area, and there may be some, where the taliban have been able to hold ground. they've taken huge losses. the army has taken huge losses, the afghan army. there's a willingness to fight. this isn't like those iraqi divisions which just disappeared when isis showed up. there's a willingness to fight. there's a hatred of the taliban, inside afghanistan. most afghans don't like the taliban and they like the army. and so they've done well. they're going to need continue support. and they deserve continuing support, training, equipment. hey need to -- they need

training with air power, intelligence. three areas where they're going to need continuing support. we now have a goal of removing all forces by 2016 but both general campbell and general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, has said, well, if circumstances change by 2016 they're going to make recommendations to the president, whoever the chairman of the joint chiefs is or whoever the -- our commander in afghanistan is. they will make whatever the circumstances indicate they should make as a recommendation to the president when that time comes, when all forces are pulled out. but in the meantime there are areas, including i left out counter terrorism which i should put in there. but counter terrorism, logistics, intelligence, and air power are the areas i would need y particularly

special support. but they're doing well and they're well liked. and there's local police who are well liked who are close to the -- inside the villages to the village leaders. that one is -- that effort is being apparent fairly successful as well. >> and one of the things. the national police are doing better, too. years ago everybody said the army's great, clean, afghan army's got strong support but the national police was corrupt. that's what you heard five years ago. you haven't heard much about that because even the national police seems to have cleaned up their act somewhat. >> i want to ask one last quick question and invite you a little bit into a potential controversy and then go to the audience for questions. and former

ambassador have brought something to my attention that i -- said something which i had not understood, which is that used to defend sufert troops and coalition troops but not at this point in support of afghan security forces. since it's all one fight that surprised me a bit. >> i'm not sure that's been decided by the way. hopefully not. because i think they've got a good point. i don't know that that's been resolved yet but i think they make a good point. >> let's have the questions from the audience. in the art with you back. >> thank you very much. basically i'm from afghanistan, too. everything looks wonderful after the big change in

afghanistan but the only concern that everybody has, this is their policy of pakistan. do you think that afghan the new government, they're able to change the new policy to afghanistan? >> we've been pushing them to change their policy for as long as i can remember. i used to -- i made maybe a dozen trips to afghanistan in the last ten years or so and i used to always add pakistan, go to pakistan. received ived so much so much false information in afghanistan about their policies that i just finally don't even go there any more. i don't want to hear their ying any more. frankly about what they're doing. at one point i had the head of intelligence saying if you could point out to us where in

people are that are supporting the taliban in afghanistan, we'll go after them. and i looked at them and i said, are you kidding? you know where they are. you know absolutely where they are. them. supporting so i had just sort of given up in terms of trying to change their policy. we shouldn't give up. the fact that i'm frustrated is not a policy by the way. it's just a fact of life. you know. i'm just being honest with you. but now there may be some additional ways in which we can encourage pakistan to really go after the people who are creating trouble inside of afghanistan. there may be -- we talked about it a little earlier in the meeting we had. there may be some new ways of persuasion towards pakistan to really go after the problem

that's being created in afghanistan. but created in pakistan. we've just got to keep looking for ways and not be frustrated by my frustration. > sir. >> good morning. we have a saying that in our mohammed e world if doesn't go to the mountain, the mountain must go to mohammed. you are mohammed. >> i know i'm overweight. >> i have been the president of the national coalition for dialogue. i've been dealing with tribes from all over the past 12 years. i came here for some medical treatment recently.

first i extend our people's appreciation for the partnership that has always existed between the united states and afghanistan, especially the tribes of afghanistan. we were partners in fighting the soviet union. you supplied us with the military and equipment, and we supplied the manpower. and after a loss of three million of our citizens, one and a half million on the battlefield and one and a half

mill through genocide, we managed together to bring the soviet empire down to its knees. the afghan people are not getting the credit for that. secondly, we as two nations partnered together to fight against terrorism. when the united states first entered afghanistan in 2001 with 500 soldiers, it was the ground forces of the freedom fighters, supported by the air support from the united states, that we managed to get rid of the taliban and al-qaeda. since then, sir, i see a strain in our relationship. after 2005, it was okay. but when iraq happened, afghanistan started getting on the back burner. today we do not see the strength of the partnership that we had in the past. it's a fact, sir, that you being in the position that you are, you cannot play marbles with the pakistani people. they are blatantly supporting the afghani group. they have established bases inside afghanistan. they sent rockets, killing our people, driving our people out. but i do not -- you know, we have a partnership. we just signed the bsa. does this include the united states bringing action against the pakistani government through the united nations by imposing sanctions against them to stop this carnage that they're imposing on the people? i appreciate the fact that we

want to develop afghanistan and we want to bring peace and prosperity to afghanistan. but the people of the united states, sir, you said how do you bring the people? we bring the people of the united states back into the arena by informing them and letting them know that the battle is not between afghanistan and iran, but this is a battle that al-qaeda, and the new kids on the block, terrorists, isis, are fighting against the west, using afghanistan as a battleground. and as long as we keep the door open for these people to come in and do this battle against you, i extend my condolences and my appreciation to over 2,000 american soldiers that have sacrificed their lives in afghanistan.

but they have not sacrificed their lives on their own. they have sacrificed their lives for the children of the united states, so that their futures are secure, so that people like that cannot make trouble for you, sir. i just want the united states to voice its opposition to what the pakistani isis is doing in afghanistan. >> there was a question in the back. yes, ma'am? >> thank you. i have a question about counterterrorism efforts in iraq right now. there have been some contradictory reports about u.s. and russian counterterrorism collaboration, so i'd like for you to clarify what that collaboration looks like. and then also, in terms of terrorist financing, what is the current status of saudi arabia? are they moving towards countering that financing the way they've promised? >> i don't know any more about the u.s.-russian collaboration, if real, than you do, because i just saw the first time -- we're not in session now so we don't get the briefings we usually do, but i only know what i've read

about it. we'll know a lot more when we get back about it, if it's real, in the intelligence area. i hope it is, by the way. there ought to be common ground on some things. and it ought to be -- isis ought to unite the world, including people who now have kind of an unhappy chile relationship, which is the case of us and russia in the west, because of their activities in ukraine and other places.

but there's still areas where there should be a working together, and if isis can't unite the world, nothing can. if isis can't unite the arab and muslim world, then i don't know what would. isis is an opportunity. it's hard to use that word with isis. but it can unify people. it has unified the world. how many countries now, 60, 70 countries are signed up? to support in some way the effort against isis. there's a real coalition that involves now arab and muslim countries, openly, not quietly, openly participating in the campaign against isis. that could have a major impact among their populations, a

recognition that a tiny percentage of islam is conducting, in the name of islam, horrific acts. and the other 98% of islam, i think, is seeing that that is not what islam -- they already know that's not what islam is about, but they don't want islam to be perceived in that way. and so you're going to find a coming together over time, and the president has pointed out this is going to be a long battle. but i think now there could be a turning point in the world, in the islamic world, and in the non-islamic world, against the common threat. and so i hope the stories are true but i don't know anything more about it than what i've read in terms of sharing of intelligence between russia and the united states. but if it's true, it would be, i think, a good sign of the power of horror and terror to unite people against it.

your second question had to do with iraq. i'm sorry. saudi financing? i know the issue has been raised constantly. and we think, we think that there's been progress in that area. we hope, because it's been a real problem, even though it's not the government. it's what the governments -- the governments look the other way when it happens. it's not just saudis either. it's other countries in the gulf that have looked the other way when some of their wealthy people thought they were buying peace or supporting some cause they believed in. i'm not sure which is more prevalent, by providing funds for terror. >> sir in the back there, and then here. >> mark snyder, international crisis group. i suspect for most of the people here, i say how sorely your voice is going to be missed in the u.s. senate. >> my wife would not join you in that. [laughter]

>> we're going to have a report coming up today or tomorrow on the afghan political transition. one of the things you mentioned was the importance of sustaining the coalition government by in fact continuing to support the strengthening of the ansf. one of the questions we have in the recommendation, in the report and previous reports, is that to do that we need to provide what they're calling the combat enablers, air support over the horizon, intelligence, and thus far, it's not clear how that's going to be provided, after 2014. so i'm wondering whether or not you could speak to that issue. and the second, you spoke about the importance of supporting the moderate rebel forces in syria. they're getting clobbered at the moment. and while your suggestion for action along the border would relieve what may be a massacre in kobani, the question is, how do you provide more support for

those moderate rebels now? >> well, a keyword in that sentence is "now," because there is going to be support, and the hope is that it will be able to be provided earlier than later. i mean, but it's going to take some time. now, i can't comment on the support. there have been reports that there's been covert support. and so i can't confirm that, even though they're on the press. but you have to -- if that's true that there's been coverts, you've got to factor that in to

some extent. you don't know to whatxtent. i do know but i can't say. but that is, if it's true, is a factor. on the overt support, which is the department of defense support, the president has laid out a course of action. i just hope it can be speeded up. in terms of the enablers that you made reference to, those are not, except in general terms, i don't think that precise nature of each area of enabling has been worked out. maybe it has, and maybe i don't know it. but that's going to be determined by the circumstances and events and capabilities on the ground. and i don't know that in any area, that they've been fully worked out. if they have been, particularly in the area of intelligence, if i did know, i wouldn't be able to say. but i doubt those have been really fleshed out yet. if they have been -- if it's something i can publicly talk about, then i have to apologize for not being able to fill you in.

my hunch is that that's being worked on as we speak, all of them. >> sir, here in the front row. >> i'm from the american enterprise institute. you rightly pointed out before, about pakistan being frustrated or just hoping for pakistan to change its policy. do you think that one way to change pakistan policy would be to demonstrate a long-term, strong commitment to afghanistan's future, to convince the pakistani military officials that the taliban will not be -- are not the future of afghanistan, that the current establishment will be in place? based on my own experience, my own discussion with pakistani military, they are not convinced about that. before 2014, they were saying that -- they were raising sometimes some exaggerated concerns. they were saying, very frankly, that they're not sure that this will be in place. america is leaving but we are

in this region. whether it's now about post-2014 approach, they have this time frame. end of 2016. do you think changing that will change pakistan's policy? you did mention before that if the situation is bad, perhaps we might reconsider keeping it the forces, even post-2016, but is that possible, given that it's so difficult to do that in iraq? thank you. >> well, there's a totally different situation in iraq than there is here. here, the afghan government wants us there. except for putting aside karzai, the people of afghanistan want us there. and their candidates wanted us there, both of them. so unlike iraq where their prime minister said there's no way that your troops can stay here after that deadline -- i mean, i know there's a big debate as to whether or not the president could have tried harder. but if you read gates' book, what he said is the prime minister of iraq was not going to allow any american troops to stay there beyond the deadline, which president bush had negotiated.

and i believe that's true, that politically, he was not going to do it, period. he wished now that he had agreed to american troops staying there, but that's -- well, he may wish now. but that's very different from afghanistan, where the government wants us to continue. to answer your question, i believe that, yes, if they -- if pakistan senses constancy, a continued commitment on the part of the united states, not just militarily, but economically, that we're there for the long-term, and we are and i hope we are, that that will affect

their calculus. i think that's true. and if they think that, yes, 2016 is now what is the goal -- that's not what is set, but as dempsey said and as campbell said, that if circumstances are such at the end of 2016, that they would reconsider, that they would recommend -- because it's only a recommendation, whoever the president is at the end of 2016 would make the decision as to whether or not to follow a recommendation by our commander or by a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to continue some military presence beyond the end of 2016. but given the fact that both of those leaders, military leaders, have said they would of course make a recommendation to continue some military presence, if circumstances are such, that that leads them to make a recommendation, that they're going to do that, because that's

their duty. so that possibility is real, as far as i'm concerned. it's real, even though it's not now the plan. or the hope. >> we have time, unfortunately, for just two more questions. ,ma'am, here. and then the last question. >> thank you very much for your service. you started your talk with "we don't need doves, we don't need hawks, what we need are owls." can you speak to the characteristics of the owls that you envision? thank you. >> eyes open, mouth shut. ha ha!

[laughter] you know, thoughtful, wise, not jumping to conclusions, understanding history, learning from history. i don't know if that's what the question is seeking. but, you know, we have got to understand the history a lot better. we've got to understand iranian history, iran-u.s. history, what happened in the 50's in iran that still drives iranians or at least their old leaders, not the young people of iran, who apparently want a major change in iran, by the way, but the leaders who were alive in the 50's when the cia deposed a freely elected president in iran. we have got to understand that history, as part of a whole picture. we've got to understand the history in asia. i don't want to go beyond that. but -- so i think an owl, the characteristics would be that they would really understand history, keep their eyes open and not, you know, not reach any

prejudgments, understand our limitations, by the way, as well as our power, understand the limits of power, understand the capabilities of power. when you decide to use it, use it wisely and effectively. the power of coalitions. i think a wise owl understands that it is critical, particularly in that part of the world, unless there's some immediate threat to our own interest, like an embassy, that you act with countries in the region, far more powerful than to just have a western effort militarily, which plays into the hands of the terrorists. that's a propaganda fuel for them, that it's a western occupation. hey, this is not a western -- this is not a western effort that's going on right now in iraq and syria. this is a worldwide effort against these guys, and that takes away a propaganda club from isis that wants to talk about another crusade.

so i don't know if i'm addressing your question -- >> you are. and thank you very much, because my firm is on track and on target, because that is really the basis of much of the problems in the region. assumed assumptions, the diplomat being sent out, having a good understanding of the people, with whom they are negotiating. >> i like the language, the importance of language, is what you're talking about, speaking the language. i think it was when president bush began. he talked about humility. i think that was a word, whether or not he lived up to his own standard or not. that's a different issue. but i liked it when president bush, i think, started his office, talking about we need

some humility. >> last question, quickly. >> you just mentioned about progress in afghanistan. you are right, because afghanistan in 2001 and 2014, huge differences. election shouts that the people of afghanistan rejected the status quo. they worked for improving governments. and also, they rejected the taliban. the ideas or their influence, which was -- you know, the people were facing threats. but they came out. so they don't want to go back. so we want to leave the election behind. we have a new government there, the ideas, how to mend relationships with the international community, especially the u.s. it's a good sign for that. so my suggestion, my question is, what more steps are needed to strengthen this relationship between afghanistan and the u.s., and the continuation of support?

because we need support, because from one extreme, you were giving a lot of money to afghanistan or spending a lot of money without -- but now you would like less money. how to balance this kind of relationship? >> i'm not sure this is directly responsive to your question, but in terms of american support, which i believe is important, desired and important, and other countries, i think the same thing is true, that have been supportive, either with troops or money, that what our publics believe in a democracy such as ours is important. and that's why i spoke about that issue. if there's one part of this whole

picture that i could change, it would be that there be more balanced coverage in america of afghanistan. its pluses, not just its minuses, not just the bombs going off or where the taliban is making progress in some parts but the amazing progress under these circumstances in afghanistan, including the elections. that's going to affect our congressional response to what should be done in afghanistan in order to strengthen the relationship. it's not really responsive to your question but it's what i believe is so important. not just today. i've spoken about the importance in terms of what the impact of its reporting is on typical americans' view of afghanistan. if that doesn't become more balanced, if somehow or other, the press can't see the glass not only half full in afghanistan but getting fuller,

if they can't visit the university or a school in a village where girls are going to school, or a health clinic which is now providing health services, or whatever it is, if they can't cover that and say, look what we have helped produce, obviously the afghan people have produced it. we keep saying we want to open a door for people, but we can't walk through that door. the afghan people are walking through that door now. they've risked their lives. i mean, i don't know how many afghan soldiers have lost their lives. huge numbers have lost their lives in this fight. and if the american people can sense that, i think it would really, on our side of the relationship, be the most

important thing that could happen, because then there would be a much greater willingness to really be a true partner with afghanistan, which is so important. >> i think we've seen today an example of this sound, steady leadership that the senator has shown in his years in the senate and particularly in the senate armed services committee. afghanistan is only one example. he has, if you will, been largely an owl on foreign policy. thoughtful, wise, steady. he has been a supporter of the usip. and when you step down from your responsibilities in january, you will be sorely missed. >> thank you. >> on all -- on a whole range of issues. i think if you could join me in appreciation for the senator being here, and his wonderful service. [applause] >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [indiscernible conversations] coming up next, q and a with

richard norton smith. and later, at 7:00 a.m., washington journal. today, the brookings institution hosts a discussion on health

care policy. they will discuss quality care while at min amazing patient pay for quality care. >> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get to debate previews from our politics team. c-span has brought you over 100 senate and house debates. you can share what you think about what they are saying. stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter and liking us on facebook.

>> this week on, "q&a," our guest is author richard norton smith, who wrote the book, "on his own terms: a life of nelson rockefeller." he explores the wealth, privilege, and power on the nelson rockefeller family, the influence on the republican party over the years, and his time as governor of new york state. smith also talks about rockefeller outside of politics, his marriage to happy rockefeller, and the murky circumstances of his death. >> richard norton smith, after 14 years of work on your book, what would you tell somebody who does not know about nelson rockefeller, who he is, what he did?

>> he was a significant, indeed historically significant, figure in a number of fields. on one level, i gave him the name of "rockefeller republicanism," that i would describe as existing views of tens of millions of americans who may not be aware of the phrase. in a nutshell, a combination of policies that are fiscally responsible and socially liberal. he said himself that he had a republican head and a democratic heart. nead esposito, who was one of them the more improbable of rockefeller's allies, he said that he was too liberal for the

conservatives and to conservative for the democrats. that is too middle-of-the-road politics, that is a worldview that we can hopefully get into, but it does suggest that he is not a figure consigned to the history books that he is someone who politically has relevance. something else that sets them apart that does make him someone out of the 21st century, he had this in norma's confidence that every problem had a solution. he believed that passionately. that is something of a product

of a generation that overcame the depression, won world war ii, was committed to winning the cold war, was committed to putting a man on the moon, was committed to building the national highway system. he was the most powerful member of the most powerful family in the most powerful nation, and arguably its most powerful moment in history. all of that, for starters suggest, he could win any office. he was 32 years old when franklin delano roosevelt invited him to become his latin american coordinator. during world war ii, he not only try to invent what friends called "a better capitalism," a capitalism that was both profitable in latin america but that also had a social conscience. he anticipated the cold war. he anticipated our then-ally the soviet union of changing.

he anticipated what we would call today as the third world that would reassess the capitalist mission. he spent a lifetime pursuing that, among all sorts of other interests. >> we need some basics. he died in what year of what age? >> he died in 1979 at the age of 70 after two rather dispiriting years as gerald ford's vice president, and 15 dominant years as the governor of new york. governor of new york. >> how many times was elected governor?