mr. thornberry: the committee will come to order. today the house armed services committee meets to discuss the conflict in afghanistan. week of been engaged in military action in afghanistan for 14 years. the predictions that this would be a long conflict have proven accurate. while there have been setbacks in recent years, there's also cause for cautious optimism. the united states and its allies, especially the afghan forces, have made some meaningful gains. counterinsurgent is one of the toughest types of war a democracy can fight. while this conflict has been a difficult one, it's not impossible. both our future security and the future of the afghan people depend on our success. the people of afghanistan currently have, in my opinion, the best opportunity for a stable, relatively peaceful country that they have had in over four decades.

together with the cooperation of our allies in the kabul government, we built a 352,000-strong afghan national security force. although that takes times, the ansf is growing capability. but now is a critical moment. we must not repeat the mistakes of iraq or an early withdrawal that was based in my view on political, rather than strategic, calculations contributed to the rise of isil, or an enemy once devastated has reconstituted itself to pose an even bigger, more deadly threat. although the operational outlook is very different than iraq, afghanistan could also become unstable, should the united states end the mission before the afghan forces are capable of providing their own security. we should not have, in my view a time-based withdrawal from afghanistan. and i hope that the president reconsiders his distribute

approach he's previously announced and listens to the request of president ghani. today i hope to resolve -- to hear answers on some important questions such as what objectives must be met to secure our gains, what are the key tactical and operational challenges facing the ansf? and is our presence and the allied presence in afghanistan adequate to meet those challenges? finally, as congress considers the president's counter-isil aumf request, what implications would that have on future operations against terrorist groups in afghanistan. we are fortunate to have general campbell with us to answer these and many other questions today. but before turning to him, i'd yield to the distinguished ranking member, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hearing.

i want to thank general campbell for being here and also for his service. he's the absolute right man for the job in afghanistan. certainly he's a lot of experience there. i think there has been progress, especially since general campbell took over. really laid the foundation at least to build off that solid government and build a partnership. unlike in iraq, where we had you know, very, very strong difficulty getting any sort of bilateral security agreement that would allow us to stay, week of achieved that, as the chairman mentioned, president ghani wants us to be there and hopefully we can make that

relationship work to help maintain the security. ultimately that, you know, that is the big challenge. afghanistan has got to be responsible for itself. they've got to be able to provide for their own security. and they've made great strides in doing. that as i'm sure the general will point out. they've taken the primary security role throughout the country. and have done ok. not going to, you know, sugar coat that. it's still a very tough fight. but they've held their own. they've managed to keep the country relatively stable in light of the insurgency and we need to build on that because ultimately in afghanistan and iraq and all of these countries, western military forces cannot impose security on another country. a fine line between helping them and appearing like a foreign occupying force. in this case as we draw down and up the responsibility of the afghan security forces, i think we've done it about right. giving them that responsibility. but going forward there will continue to be many, many challenges. the government still has corruption problems. the taliban are still very active. the border issues with pakistan have not been resolved and we definitely have a security interest in that region. as i've said many times before in this committee, i wish we didn't. it's a very, very difficult

place to deal with. but we do. the taliban, al qaeda, these are groups that are part of the larger movement that threatens us. we need a strong presence that there that can help maintain that and one that builds tore self-sufficiency and the afghan people being able to stand on their own. i look forward to hearing from the general today on how we're progressing on those goals and where we go from here. with that i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. thornberry: thank you, sir. just on an administrative note all members' offices were notified that for the purposes of this hearing we are going to go in reverse order. part of my think something that we've had a number of members newer members, who have set through a long time on other hearings before you've gotten to answer questions. in addition, those of us who have been here a while have had the opportunity to ask a number of questions about afghanistan

and so this is a good opportunity for newer members. after we hear from general campbell we'll start, go in reverse order, for everyone who was here at the time of the gavel, and then as we always do, recognize members in their order of appearance of coming in to the committee room. general campbell, again, thank you for making time to be with us. without objection, your full written statement will be made part of the record. and the floor is yours. mr. campbell: i thank you for the opportunity to be before you today. i'm honored to lead and represent the service men and women of the united states forces afghanistan. i'd like to begin by thanking the committee for your steadfast support of our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines and our civilians. due to your leadership and commitment, they're the best trained, best equipped force our nation has ever deployed. and their outstanding

performance bears testimony to your backing and the backing of the american people, so thank you very much. i'd like to pay tribute to our military families, they're the unsung heroes of the conflict. in many ways our frequent absences from home are harder on them than on us. without their support and strength, we could not proceed. thank the military families. i'd also like to recognize the over 2,200 service men and women who have been killed in action in afghanistan and the over 20,000-plus who have been wounded. each day we are striving to bring meaning to their sacrifices and we honor their memories and loved ones by continuing to build a secure and stable afghanistan. and by protecting our own homeland. over 13 years have passed since the 9/11 attacks and we haven't forgotten why we first came to afghanistan and why remain there. since 2001, the extraordinary courage of our forces have ensured that another terrorist attack originating from afghanistan and directed against the u.s. homeland has not occurred.

over six months have passed since i assumed command and much has changed since then. afghanistan, the region, the enemy, and our coalition have undergone many tremendous transitions. most of these have been very positive. i'd like to emphasize a few of these today in order to place our current campaign in context. and to really reaffirm the conditions that exist for us to achieve an enduring peace and potential strategic win for afghanistan. in september, afghanistan completed the first peaceful democratic transition in its history. this was after a prolonged, very prolonged campaign. this transition was a monumental achievement. it represents the afghan's commitment to a democrat and open suite society. the difference between the new national unity government and its predecessors is night and day. president ghani and chief executive abdullah have embraced the international community, our coalition and the afghan national defense security forces or the ansf. our partnership is strong. we now have a ratified bilateral security agreement and i would just tell you a lot of people worked very, very hard for.

that the nato status of forces agreement, which grant us necessary authorities to continue our mission. dynamics within the region continue to evolve as well. president ghani has made regional engagement a top priority, in order to address shared security and economic interest. nowhere is this more evident than in pakistan and afghan relations. the pakistani taliban's murderous attack in peshawar on 16 december may prove to be their 9/11 and really a game changer for the region. most senior pakistani officials recognize they can no longer separate the terrorists from bad terrorists. and in the last few months, i've and in the last few months i've witnessed firsthand substantive improvement in their interactions between afghan and pakistani militaries. they're now talking. the pakistan army chief of staff remarked during his recent trip to kabul, the enemies of afghanistan are the enemies of pakistan. and this is a constructive admission. we're doing everything we can to promote their closer

cooperation. while we must temper expectations, i remain optimistic that both countries are working toward a more productive relationship. the enemy remains in a state of flux too. the taliban failed to achieve any of their stated goals in 2014. they failed to disrupt the elections, they failed to undermine the political transition. and they failed to prevent the afghan government from signing a long-term security agreement with both nato and the united states. on the battlefield they achieved no enduring gains. the taliban's senior leadership is in disarray. constantly pressured by the ansf, suffering from dissention within their own ranks and lacking popular support, they've turned to high profile terrorist attacks, particularly against soft targets inside of kabul. in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, they're failing to win over the afghan population. with the coalition off the battlefield, they're primarily killing their fellow afghans and muslims. and they're murdering innocent

civilians. it's time now for them to lay down their arms and heed president ghani's call to help rebuild the afghan nation. the possible rise of isil is also a new development. thus far we believe that the isil presence in afghanistan represents a rebranding of the taliban but we're still taking this potential threat with its dangerous rhetoric and ideology very, very seriously. and we're working very closely with ansf to evaluate and understand the dynamic nature of this fledgling network. the potential emergence of isil represents an additional opportunity to bring both afghanistan and pakistanis together to confront this common threat. we will continue to engage leaders from both countries on ways we can collaborate to meet this challenge. we're all driven to prevent isil from establishing a meaningful foothold in central asia. the united states forces afghanistan and our coalition have undergone tremendous changes as well here in the

last six months. on january 1, united states forces afghanistan formally ended its combat mission operation enduring freedom. and commenced its new mission, operation freedom sentinel. weve also ended all detainee operations, simultaneously troops from 41 nations, which comprised the new nato mission resolute support, began executing their train and advise and assist mission. on january 1 the ansf resumed capabilities. they're ready and it's time. in their second fighting season in the lead, they were challenged and tested. but they held their own against a very determined enemy. on the battlefield, the ansf fought tenaciously and demonstrated their increasing capabilities. today the government of the islamic republic of afghanistan remains firmly in control of all 34 of its provincial capitals and all of its major cities. the afghan special forces in

particular have proven to be the most proficient in the entire region. they've constantly executed unilateral direct action missions using their own intelligence, using their own special mission wing helicopters to carry out long range searches. these are remarkable capabilities for any military. for both the ansf and coalition afghanistan continues to be a dangerous place. we lost a coalition solder from turkey last thursday in a suicide attack inside of kabul. ansf casualty rates increased in 2014 or 2014, excuse me. roughly 5% to 7% higher than they were in 2013. however, i think this must be viewed in light of the fact that their operational tempo was four times greater than it was in 2013. and that over 100,000 coalition forces were not on the battlefield. even considering their higher casualty rates, the ansf attrition rates, which account for all losses to the force, have not impacted combat

readiness too severely. army and police recruiting has not been a problem. afghan youths continue to join the ranks of the ansf and security forces are widely respected and viewed as a honorable, patriotic profession. the afghan nationally army remains the most trusted institution in the country. after watching the ansf respond to a variety of challenges over the past six months, i don't believe the insurgents represent an existential threat to the government. however, ansf still need a great deal of help in developing the systems and processes necessary to run a modern, professional army and police force. they also need sustained support in addressing the capability gaps of aviation, intelligence, sustainment and special operations. to address these gaps, our advisory mission and mentorship will continue to be vital. our advisors are at the security ministries, at the army corps level and police zones and those remain our main efforts.

although clear challenges exist, i do believe that the ansf capabilities, their capacities and the morale will be sufficient, backstopped by our advisory efforts. this will provide for afghanistan's long-term security by the end of the resolute support mission. president ghani recently remarked that, and i quote compelled by tragedy and cemented by mutual sacrifice the partnership between afghanistan, nato and the united states has entered a new phase, end quote. i believe what is a very critical inflexion point in our campaign. many challenges remain before us, as a new afghan government continues to form, it's still finding its footing and must do so while contending with a security threat, corruption and economic challenges. yet all of these changes transitions over last six months offer us really a tremendous opening and an opportunity. the ghani administration offer us a strategic opportunity to develop a strategic partnership that will stabilize afghanistan and then in turn provide and

offer greater security for the region and ultimately the united states homeland. there is a new spirit of cooperation in kabul. something we didn't have before. and i firmly believe that our concurrent counterterrorism and train and advise assist efforts will reinforce and deepen our strategic partnership and shape conditions for a favorable outcome to this conflict. we could offer no greater tribute to the american people our fallen and their loved ones than by maintaining our commitment to a long-term stability of afghanistan. and the enduring protection of our homeland. i'd like to direct the members' attention to the charts and a couple photographs to your right front that we've displayed. we've also provided paper copies for you to look at and i'm often asked, what have we accomplished? what have we achieved? what is success? that is been worth it? i frequently share these

statistics and images to underscore the tremendous progress that's taken place in afghanistan in the last 13-plus years. every measurable piece you take a look at, roadways, people that use the internet, number of people in school, females in school, the work force, pretty incredible. unprecedented. the life expectancy increased to just in the last 13 years. that's unprecedented. a remarkable investment, a remarkable return on our investment. few countries advance so rapidly over the last several years. that success and the coalition and ansf created the conditions for that success. 741 million life years of afghanistan people based on new life expectancy. i want to underscore that we're underwriting this progress not just for the afghans but for the american people. next will be pictures of where we were in 2001 and where we are in 2014. the first one shows inside of

kabul. then and on bottom now. then kabul at day orca bull at night, i'm sorry -- or kabul at night, i'm sorry. sixth fastest growing city in the country. remarkable difference. week of undercut the terrorists' appeal which feeds on desperation and instability. the hard work and significant sacrifices of countless u.s. and coalition military personnel and civilians over the last 13-plus years has created the conditions where afghans can now take the responsibility for their own security and governance. the afghans welcome the opportunity to shape their destiny. but they will still desire and need our assistance. we're supporting the emergence of a secure, prosperous afghanistan that desires to be and can be a reliable, strategic partner. and one that will never again allow terrorists to use its territory to launch, to plan and launch attacks against us. president ghani has asked for

additional flexibility in the nato and u.s. mission to account for the fact that the government remains in transition. he acknowledges that while the ansf are better equipped better equipped and trained than ever, work remains to build a bureaucratic processes and systems. additionally, he believes that a sustained u.s. and nato commitment provides vital stability to the country as a new government solidifies. a tremendous psychological boost to the afghan people. we will continually assess the progress of resolute support and united states forces afghanistan is currently involved in a comprehensive winter review of our campaign. this review is taking a look at all of our lines of effort, not just the military, and i provide various options and recommendations for adjusting our force posture through my chain of command. one issue is determining how long we can stay engaged at the regional level before we concentrate inside of kabul. once again, i express my profound gratitude to the committee members for your

unfailing support of our mission and our troops in afghanistan. i'm humbled and privileged to lead the men and women of their caliber and courage and every day they're making all of us proud. i ask that my original statement submitted earlier be taken for record. i do look forward to your questions and i notice that the first two rows are filled so i look forward to that as well. thank you. mr. thornberry: thank you. i appreciate the data that you brought to us. some of this is surprising to me and some of the information about the attitudes of the afghan people i think are helpful to us. particularly helpful to us. i think mr. smith and i are going to withhold our questions at the moment. i would request if we could put the posters down just to -- unless members have questions about it, just to not block folks' view. and i would yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. macarthur.

mr. macarthur: thank you, mr. chairman. and, general, i also really appreciated your comments and want to echo what you said about our men and women in uniform and their families and the sacrifices they've made. i think it's important at every opportunity to remember them. i had a question about a comment that secretary carter made yesterday and want to get your take on it. secretary carter told the senate armed services committee that withdrawal from afghanistan would be condition-based. it seemed to me that hinted that maybe there was no firm deadline for withdrawal. and my understanding has been that there has been an articulated plan by the president to have troop drawdowns by the end of 2016. so my question for you is, do you think that extending withdrawal past 2016 would help

you better accomplish your goals on the ground? mr. campbell: sir, thank you for the question. i did see the secretary's comments. sir, i really provided options that stay within the framework of what the president put out there. it shows going down to 5,500 down to between 1,000 and 1,500 by the end of 2016. the options i presented do not go past 2016. they are all providing flexibility within 2015 and 2016, sir. mr. macarthur: not to put new a difficult position, relative to stated goals by the president, but it's helpful for us to get your perspective as the commander on the ground. you showed tremendous progress here, which we i think all celebrate and want to see that continue and be in a position to be sustained after our

mission there is complete. what would be your level of confidence that you can achieve that by the end of 016? mr. campbell: honestly, i'll be very candid and i owe you my best military advice, as do i to my chain of command. i don't know what we can accomplish in the summer fighting season of 2015, at the train-advise level we're conducting. he just supported a mission on 1 january. what i really want to make sure we can do is get through a full, what we call a fighting season, april through late september time frame, focused on train, advise and assist, plus with our c.t. mission. if we can -- if we look at the downsize of the 5,500, that could take our eye off of focus on train, advise and assist when we really need. it that's why the flexibility i think is very important. as a commander on the ground we take a look at all of the different conditions out there. we continually make assessments, taking into account the enemy situation, the friendly forces, how they're doing, the people, the

different regions. and so all of those will go in as i continue to make assessments and provide. that i do need to understand and see what we can do with these new entities, what we call train, advise, assist commands. this is a new dynamic. we haven't been at that level before. my initial assessment right now is we continue to work very well. the afghans really do, you know, over the last 13-plus years have continued to develop. this is my third time in afghanistan. my last time was as the regional command, east commander, 101st 2010-2011. visited a couple times between 2011 and when i took over this summer but the difference from back in 2010-2011 to where we are today is night and day. it's incredible. the afghan security forces

continue to progress. they have an operation ongoing now, i won't go into great detail because it's an operational detail, but this is an operation that was entirely planned and led from the afghan perspective. i took back briefs on it three weeks ago when i was down in helmand. this is a three-corps operation. it has supporting efforts from the 205th in kandahar. i've never seen an afghan operation that was that complex back briefed to me and the senior leadership inside of afghanistan and the police and the army side and the integration between all of the afghan security pillars, the police and the army, their intelligence was pretty remarkable. so i think they continue to get better and better. i'll know better after this fighting season to see how it goes. but do i believe that the flexibility that we've asked for in several different options that we put forward will provide us a better opportunity to take advantage of things that have changed over the last six months. president ghani and his embracing of the international community, the relationship between pakistan and some changes in leadership in the afghan security forces.

i really do think that leadership and holding people accountable really makes a difference. mr. macarthur: thank you general. i yield back. mr. thornberry: thank you. mr. aguilar. mr. aguilar: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the change in format. i'll be sure to add you to the christmas card list. thank you for that. thank you, general, for being here. with respect to the aumf, if congress were to pass the proposed aumf, could you provide us with examples of what you could and could not do within that? mr. campbell: thanks for the question, sir. i have not read the entire aumf. i could tell you from looking at it briefly that what that would provide, i mean, the authorities i have today and the resources i have today, i can continue to work hard at the c.t. mission and the train, advise, assist mission that i have. with the aumf, the way i understand it now, with now no geographical boundaries, i think i still would be able to prosecute what i need to for today. after 2015, where my

authorities may change, through today i have no issues. mr. aguilar: have detention policies changed? mr. campbell: yes. do i not have the authority to detain the insurgents. all detainees we would have had, they've been turned over to afghanistan or other countries. i have no detention facilities inside of afghanistan. mr. aguilar: thank you. one of the things we've talked about extensively is risk. can you talk to us, and you mentioned in your testimony that it wouldn't be affected too severely, but could you add some more color to the discussion of risk associated with the proposed drawdown? mr. campbell: risk takes in a lot of different factors. the risk to the coalition of u.s. forces, the risk to the afghan security forces i think again, any commander on the ground would like to have more resources, more people. we continue to work hard

through that. as i make the assessment today and take a look at many of the things as we've drawn down, i don't say withdrawal, but we're in a continuous transition, i think for the next two years plus it will be a continued transition. we have to adapt to those transitions. as you transition, you lose people, which provides security. most of my force protection of security is by, with and through the afghans. as we consolidate, week of gone from 300-plus cops, combat outposts and forward operating bases, to less than 25 today. so that increases the risk in some areas to force protection, to security. as you continue to transition forces, you lose some resources. so the number of aircraft, the number of i.s.r. platforms, all those things goes into the calculus as i take a look at the risk assessment, both to the risk to the mission and to risk to force. again, as i looked at flexibility, president ghani asked for flexibility, as i looked at that, i did take into

account all those to try to mitigate risk of force as we move forward. mr. aguilar: can you give us examples of things that president ghani may discuss when he addresses this congress later this month? mr. campbell: first off, sir with president ghani and dr. abdullah, the senior -- the c.e.o., it is a new dynamic. i've had to deal with president karzai when i first got there. i think the american people, all the people need to understand that every time president ghani or dr. abdullah address a crowd, they thank the international community, they thank the u.s. in particular they pick the u.s. out. they thank them for their support. they thank the families for the sacrifices of their sons and daughters. you never would have heard that before. it is a completely different atmosphere. i think the president will talk to all of you about that. i think he's quite proud of that. he's quite proud that he's taken on his leadership role as

a commander in chief. he's visited training sites, he's visited military hospitals. i attended their national security conferences. i'm able to talk to him about different security issues at any time. but i think he'll really talk about where afghanistan has come over the last 13 years where its security forces where it would not be without the help of the great coalition and the u.s. in particular, not only for the men and women that made sacrifices and the economic impact that the u.s. provided. he may talk a little bit how he sees the future and how he will get after corruption and how he will broaden the prospective and deal? terms of a regional aspect and the entire region and how he needs to do that from an

economic perspective. he is looking forward to it and all of you will find that he will be very engaging and his message will be one of thanks and has a great vision for the future of afghanistan. the chair: mr. knight. mr. knight: let's talk about readiness of the forces. and now be retired. and have been or seen battles over the last 24 years. so here in congress, we worry about things about sequestration and readiness of force and wonder about ratios of young men and women being over there for a year and being back here for a year.

can you give us the readiness of force today as compared to four, five years ago or maybe even 10 years ago. general campbell: i can give you a perspective of the readiness of the forces as i get. little bit different perspective when i was a vice chief of the army. all the forces i get in afghanistan particularly from the u.s. are trained at the highest level and are focused on their mission in afghanistan. all the missions prioritize their deploying forces first and get the necessary training because they will be putting their lives on the line. on the sequestration, it was six months ago when i was a vice and i continue to talk to senior leadership from all the services that with sequestration that would devastate the services to provide the same type of forces. my son is a sergeant in the

army and been to afghanistan in twice. he was a navy second airborne and i worry about both as a father and as a chand commander, the ability to provide the very best training and all the resources that go with that with our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and sequestration would dampen or elevate the risk, absolutely. mr. knight: i think you have a lot of committed people here that believe that, too. when we talk about detainees and you say you turn them over to security forces or afghanistan, what happens from there? is there a prosecution? is there some sort of judicial action there or are they just detained or are they released? general campbell: all of the above, quite frankly. but with the detainees that we

have. there was a long process that we went to get assurances from countries to make sure that the right assurance was in place they would be tried if they had to go through that process that they would be treated humanely. that was carefully taken a look at out of all the detainees that were released. no longer do we have detention facilities inside of the afghan system that continues to grow. ous of the air base is the best detention facility outside of afghanistan and continues to be the gold standard that they have there. they are in the process based on direction of president ghani to move the detainees and move them to kandahar, inside of kabul to make sure they have the right securities, without going through the proper

trials. i think they continue to work that hard. it is a gold standard and has the right prosecution efforts, has the right folks, judges all kind of contained in one unit and we have a system that will help build that capability for them. mr. knight: i yield back, mr. chair. chairman mr. moulton. mr. moulton: i was impressed what i saw in the codel two weeks ago and i share the chairman's view of the situation in iraq where i think that all the progress we made or all of the progress we made during the surge has been squandered by withdrawing too quickly and not providing the diplomatic support that we knew was necessary. ambassador crocker and general petraeus called for. what specifically are you doing differently in afghanistan this

time around? i have the highest respect for president ghani but i'm not interested in hearing what is different about our partner. after you invest trillions of dollars of our national treasure and invest thousands of lives, we shouldn't leave the eventual success of our mission up to the whims of our partner. i'm interested in what you and the u.s. effort there is doing differently from iraq. general campbell: thanks for the question. i was back here doing testimony. i spent 18, 19 months in iraq as a one-star back in 2006 2007 during the surge inside of baghdad and the fundamental difference is the afghan security forces and their leadership and their determination to make sure and they see the news and they see

the news what is going on in iraq and they will not let happen what happened in afghanistan what happened in iraq. during the political instability last fall, people thought they would divide among the ethnic fractures, which is what happened inside of iraq. in afghanistan, they did not do that despite a lot of talk. they took that as a point of pride to make sure they didn't fracture that and were above that and a national force. and take great pride in doing that. the training i have seen is afghan-led training. asked the core commander to look at some training. he took me to medical training and marksmanship training. this was unannounced. mr. moulton: that's what the afghans are doing different than the iraqis. what are we doing to ensure

that. president ghani is a great partner. he could be gone tomorrow, what sort of backstops are we putting in place if this starts to head south we can recover and won't end up with a situation like we had in iraq? general campbell: ministry level what we are doing with the m.o.i. and m.o.d. that control the military and police. we are working on the programming, planning and budgeting and working on the sustainment and working on the strategic communications and intelligence. these are essential functions that we think they need to continue to have as we come out of there. our continued work in those areas at the ministry levels will continue to help. the other pieces, they are looking hard to ensure they are

a professional army and have leadership courses that continue to go on. they pick bright leaders and bring them into special courses on leadership and leadership makes a difference. mr. moulton: are you seeing the state department devote the level of resources to continue this mentorship and support? general campbell: we have a great relationship with the folks. and we are connected right next to the embassy. they are engaged in all the other ministries. and the n.g.o.'s and they are dedicated and continue to work very hard. all the coalition, all the state department and the different embassies are passionate about where afghanistan can go. they are excited about the future of afghanistan and everyone is working hard and the fact what has happened in iraq gives them more determination. mr. moulton: my last question, just to ensure that we are maintaining our commitment to

the long-term stability of afghanistan as you said earlier in your spoken testimony, what is the ongoing financial commitment of the united states to make that happen? general campbell: we are looking very hard how we can be more efficient and reduce that but it's about $4.1 billion and f.y. 16 it is because of efficiencies that we have garnered in forces and we will look at that very hard. but they are dependent on the u.s. and donor nations to have this army and police. >> i join congressman moulton and congressman ashford and glad to see the troops deployed from my district. in late february, the d.o.d.

announced the three units as the upcoming forces in afghanistan and one is the second brigade of the 10th mountain brigade in fort drum. it has supported operations to both iraq and afghanistan. so, based upon my visit and our privilege of meeting with president ghani and the upcoming deployment of soldiers in my district that i represent, i would like to know from you your assessment of the risks to the security situation as we draw down in afghanistan and how that will impact our future operations against the taliban. general campbell: thank you for visiting and thanks for the question. i have one over here that commanded the third brigade and 10th mountain was in the southern part of afghanistan back in 2010 and 2011 and appreciative of the 10th

mountain support. they'll come in and work the train, advise and assist. the president has told me that's his number one priority. i look at that every single day and monitor the threat streams both inside of kabul and our combat outposts and we are looking at ways to mitigate that threat. it will be a very dangerous environment. there will be insurgents who want to kill our soldiers. we shouldn't make -- we shouldn't put that aside. that is out there every single day. every day, what we can't do is become complacent. we tell our soldiers in a nine-month rotation, they will have the opportunity to make a difference. it may only be 15 seconds in their entire tour when it comes in terms of force protection. they have to be ready all the

time. the services do a great job of preparing our soldiers to understand the risks that will become when they do deploy and many of our soldiers have been there numerous times. it is changing. the green on blue incidents that have been in the news the last several years where police attack u.s. members and that continues to get much less as we mitigated that through our own training with different programs rnings provide overwatch. the afghans are a much better job of vetting police and soldiers and how they do their training and we can't be complacent. believe me, the force protection is utmost in our mind and our pre-deployment training, we are reminded to go through processes to make sure that they don't become complacent. >> i wanted to ask one

follow-up. in our discussions with president ghani, we talked about the threat of isis and the potential to grow in afghanistan and most recent recruiting efforts? can you talk about what those challenges are going to be, not just in the short-term but in the long-term. general campbell: thank you for the question. it is a potential threat. it is a concern to him and it is a concern to me. we engaged with our afghan security partners in making sure we see what they see. and all the other intelligence organizations that we have inside afghanistan. we come together to discuss that potential threat. i would tell you right now we have seen some recruiting in different parts of the country. we have seen some night-letter drops. we have not seen it operationized or money come in or forces come in to prosecute targets. but it is a potential threat for afghanistan and pakistan. it is an area where afghanistan and pakistan can continue to

work together to go after a potential threat that is already displayed how horrendous they will be. and the afghan security institutions and the army and police have told me they will not let it happen. and the dynamics inside of afghanistan are different than iraq, with the sunni prosecution, the political piece, this is not just -- this just doesn't happen in the last several months but has been building up in syria, iraq and afghanistan. it is a different dynamic with the culture you have there as well. we will see it and continue to monitor it and make sure we have a strategy that can attack it in a short-term, mid-term and long-term. chairman mr. ashford. mr. ashford: thank you. i can tell you when we went to see general ghani, he was so terribly appreciative of your

efforts and the efforts -- i was also happy to hear from president ghani of his relationship with the university of nebraska at omaha and the afghan studies program that has been going on there for over 30 years. i was glad to hear that. and i thank congressman wilson who is chairman of our emerging threats subcommittee, and my two colleagues. it was an opportunity for me and our district to see what was going on. just -- we went to obviously to jordan and iraq and to afghanistan, so we got the entire picture in a way. and there was a critical question that was asked that i was left with, we have many fewer members of the armed

services in iraq than we do in afghanistan and for historic reasons and for reasons that you discussed, can i just ask you to comment a little more on the situation. if the isis situation -- it already is very dangerous, but more troops from the american side are necessary or whatever the event talt may be. could you comment on the relationship. president ghani did talk about what you suggest that they are observing, watching. you talked about his pakistan -- pakistani -- his discussions with pakistan which seems very very positive. but this threat in syria and iraq, which is growing and were contained to a certain agree. that's the same middle east area. could you comment a little more on that relationship. what if it becomes more

difficult for the iraqi forces to be successful in their country. general campbell: i can't comment on the iraqi forces but comment on the afghan forces. the senior leadership have told me on several occasions that they will not let what happened in iraq happen in afghanistan. they are very determined about that. they have gone out of their way to tell me. that question has been raised in many different instances, as they have talked to the leadership. the president wants people to understand that the environment in afghanistan continues to evolve. it is a dynamic environment and doesn't want his forces to become complacent and what happened in syria and iraq and in this network, that it evolves very, very quickly and wants to make sure his forces and his intelligence services are taking a look at everything. and making sure that it doesn't get a foothold inside of afghanistan and continues to

spread. and he can be help with this association with pakistan because they have the same issues and that relationship in understanding that they have a common enemy they can work toward together, can help them. they are looking at this very hard, he gets several security updates every day and the piece continues to be on his mind. but in the national security council meetings that i sit in he has the senior security folks in there, but they view it as a potential threat and ensuring they have a strategy as we move forward and will continue to evolve over time. >> i had a question about pakistan but i'm sure it will be asked and answered. >> it's good to see you again. i sleep better at night knowing you're there. the former deputy commander and acting commander of special

forces in iraq. i think we left iraq too soon. when we left iraq on a time line rather than condition on the ground, it affected the sunnis. we disenfranchised them, i believe. we isolated the kurds and empowered a centralized a government to be noninclusive and the result was a vacuum and what we are seeing today is being filled by isis and the concern of the committee remains the same. looking forward, what would you consider to be your three priority conditions and what the end strength to support that and lastly, in my experience, having the detention center, at least a temporary detention center gave us the ability to rapidly turn around sensitive site exploitation and do follow-ons that made a difference on the ground and not having the

ability to have a detention center, at least a temporary detention center, to many would adversely affect your ability when you find a target, rapidly turn around. if you could comment on that whether it adversely affects your ability to turn around. general campbell: thanks for your service. if i could answer the last one first and come back and answer the isis piece. we try to instill in our afghan partners, all the operations should be intelligence-based. we have a good relationship with the intell service. as they have the detainees, we work the relationship to make sure we can partner with them and the intelligence and information they get from their detainees, we try to make sure they can get that information

as well, because it impacts our force protection and we can help guide them. they are building a fusion cell, which combines them together, lessons we have learned over years and years. they are stovepiped. and m.o.i. and m.o.d. working off pieces. they are testing this with a pilot down in northern hell money and we are -- hell monday as they do -- helmu province as they get the intelligence force to drive the other targets. i think our relationship over the last 13-plus years of working with them at the ministry levels and core levels, we have a relationship to enable to make sure we can help them with that intelligence. we still have a lot of work to do with that. they don't have the same type

of platforms that provide us some of that. we share where we can, but we have to continue to build their capabilities. we are working on how we build the intelligence capability. it is one of the eight essential functions. my senior deputy chief of staff for intelligence, the j-2, was the centcom j-2 before this assignment. he is the senior intel adviser to help build those exabets. i feel much better than we were were. on the isis piece on conditions, i look every single day and assess conditions. time is one of those conditions. number of people on the ground from a coalition perspective and afghan security perspective. i look at all of those. i want to look at what happens after this first full fighting season where the afghans are totally on their own. they have led it for the first two years.

but this is the first time they are on their own and we are in train, advise and assist and they are working for intelligence and those areas. i can't give you a number that i would feel comfortable with. i would need to let this play out. but we are the best thing that we can do to hedge against afghanistan not becoming an iraq, our number one priority would be to continue to train, advise and assist and build their own capability both in close air support, both in the special operating forces, which increases their c.t. capability and president ghani has said, he is a strategic partner and wants to build the afghan c.t. capability and we will continue to work on that. >> do we have the ability if you have a high priority target, can we be present

during those initial interrogations. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. general campbell: i would rather talk to you about that in a closed session. ms. graham: military and law enforcement. my husband happens to be law enforcement and i know how important it is to have that close relationship, often that those closest to us can have

the greatest impact on our behaviors, so is the military involved working with local law enforcement and do you see that as a positive development with the changes in law enforcement recently in kabul? general campbell: thank you, ma'am for the question. in afghanistan, it really is. we talk about security pillars police and army being two different pillars. when these pillars, they do cross, they do work together the army and police and are much stronger and can't be beat.

and i attend a saturday brief, three, four hour session which we call the security senior shera and senior members, so the police and army interaction is daily every single day. the police operate a little differently. they have the law enforcement aspect and continue to work through that. but in many places, they are the only security institution in the far reaches of afghanistan. and so they are a threat to the insurgents. the afghan local police which were designed to provide security are probably the most attacked. they have the least amount of training and don't have the same weapons as the regular police or the army and they do get attacked, but they do stand up and are protect and feared by the taliban because they are linked to the people inside the communities. the linkage between the police and the army is a strong one. in the provinces, they have occp's and they are institutions that the governors have police, army and

intelligence folks inside an operational command and control element at both the regional and then at the province level. they sit right next to each other and interact with the higher headquarters which has police and army. in my headquarters, i have army, afghan army representatives, afghan police that sit right next to each other inside my combined joint operations center. and the intelligence piece or the terrorist appeal piece less than 10% of the people in afghanistan embrace the taliban and that number continues to go down and a lot of that is because of the actions of the taliban and they understand that the civilian casualty piece, like 75% are caused by insurgents, our records show that 90% are caused by the

terrorists and the people are tired of this and they want a better life. they want to be able to send their kids to school and have a roof over their head and have a job. so they understand. 85% of the people want this government. they want it to do well and they are tired of what the taliban and what they represent. so that's a big change from where we were a couple of years ago. ms. graham: thank you very much for that positive report. president ghani, get his title correct. and let's hope what you have accomplished in afghanistan will continue and can be spread throughout the region. thank you for your time, general, and your service. the chair: ms. walorski. mrs. walorski: it is disconcerting how much information the president of the united states has given out and how we read it every day in the media.

we learn about the drall, the troop size, all kinds of unbelievable information. and to kind of follow up on my colleagues' comment and i don't want to ask you this for public disclosure, i want to know the detailed plan b, what are the flags and the signs that are going to trigger our re-engagement should this go awry? i want to know we have a plan and i don't want to ask it for public for everybody and the world to listen, but i would ask you to provide it in writing or classified briefing what are we going to look for without more loss of blood and life and engagement from america. and my other question is on the new aamuf, i attended a briefing a couple of months ago and we were talking about

current rules of engagement as it pertains to afghanistan with this train, advise and assist mission. isil is networking. we know they are recruiting in afghanistan. so my question was, under this current operation you're under was if isil is identified by american troops or after began national security forces in the assist mode we are in, can we absolutely destroy isil and the answer from the state department, no, ma'am. my comment was, i would consider the fact that we are at war with them means we should destroy them. in your role right now, what is your understanding when isil is identified. are they taken out because we are at war with them or given a path? general campbell: we don't talk but rules of engagement. i would just answer that and

say i'm comfortable with the authorities that i have today that i can prosecute the mission both from a c.t. perspective and train, advise and assist perspective and protect the forces that i have. i can't go into the rules in this environment. mrs. walorski: i would like to have a conversation that talks about that at some point. and also, this new amuf. how can you engage isis? do you have more advantages? general campbell: i have seen the piece. there is no gee graphical boundries that would help out in afghanistan. i would have to do a more detailed look. right now, i have the authorities that i need to be able to prosecute the c.t. and train, advise and assist mission.

i would have to look at that and how it would impact 15 and more importantly for me as we transition in 2016. mrs. walorski: in relation to the size and troop strength compared to what you are doing right now, what additional kinds of missions or what additional kinds of coverage do you have right now that you are going to lose and if that's something you can't talk about that, i would like a conversation about that. when we are talking about, what are we actually losing there? what steps are in between there that are there for our purposes for the train, assist and -- assist the afghani forces. what does that mean? how much coverage are the

afghan forces going to do on their own? but i really do want to follow up answers to those questions so we know as members of congress who are going to be voting on this that there is some kind of a plan -- i don't think anybody can take anybody's word for anything. we also see how these things change on a dime. we owe the american pun a chance to have at least a plan. i appreciate and look forward to your responses in writing or in a classified briefing. thank you, sir. i yield back. the chair: mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: i would like to thank you and those who served under you for the incredible job that you are doing and have done in afghanistan and i join my colleagues in just thanking you for this terrific performance which goes beyond any claims that someone could have made or anecdote, but actually by the numbers or the pictures and what we can see and what my colleagues are able to see.

i agree with many of the comments made so far that i think there are many lessons we can apply from your success, this country's success in afghanistan to our operations and objectives in iraq. when it comes to the proposed aumf that we are considering to combat isis, my understanding that the immediate goal is to stop isis and ultimately to degrade, defeat and destroy isis. what is our goal in afghanistan relative to the taliban? general campbell: i really do believe that on aumf, i look forward to that and maybe in a closed session we can talk about that. on the taliban piece, our goal is to build the afghan capacity, both in their police and army to be able to have the stable afghanistan for the future. taliban in their message is not

having any traction with the afghan people. as i said, it is time for the afghan taliban to look at what they are trying to do and become part of the political process. president ghani in his inauguration speech opened the door for them to come back and work on reconciliation which could be a game changer down the road but it has to work with afghanistan down the road and where they build their afghan capability. but i do believe they want to get the taliban where they are part of the afghan vision moving forward and killing other afghans is not part of that vision. so they have to operate from a position of strength and 352,000 security forces and local police give them that capability. and the taliban are looking around and saying, the coalition forces, they signed a

b.s.a. and will continue to provide train, assist and advise. we have to come in. so i think that's where we're going with the taliban. but it is because the afghan security forces are going to drive it. mr. o'rourke: i think we are seeing record casualties and losses from the afghan security forces and thankfully and much to do, i think what your leadership and service men and women on the ground diminish casualties from coalition forces. military commanders have asked for additional flexibility something i think makes a lot of sense and fully endorse give quen the lessons we have learned from iraq and learning from iraq. i'm assuming that includes the vaket for air strike raids against terrorists and those who seek to do us harm. what status and to the degree

you can offer clarity in this, what will you have to see on the ground in that country to recommend that we no longer need that flexibility and that we can meet our -- what's going to be in 2016, our goal of having normal embassy-level of protection. again through numbers or as clearly as you can, describe what that condition will have to look like. general campbell: i could address the casualty piece first. 5% to 7% or more larger increasing than 2013. if you put it in context, it is about the operational template four times greater than they had in 2013. 100,000 coalition were not out there. it was expected that casualties would rise. one casualty is too much.

what we continue to focus on one is to improve the afghan capability to reduce the casualties, doctors, and we are working on that. that continues to progress. and then also the recruiting piece. they have got that much better. they don't recruit all year round. they stop during the summer and fighting season. now they have processes in place to do it year round. it doesn't ebb and flow like that. the casualty piece he -- the attrition rate is not based on the casualties the number one reason is the leadership. so what it would take from me to recommend that we could continue to transition and make sure that the seams and the gaps we have identified for a very long time that we need to continue to work on the afghan security forces and got them to a level that they have the processes that they need.

so the areas of aviation and we buildup their aviation capability. first thing i could ask for is closer air support or building their closer air support. when i get a request, i have asked them first, do you have a quick reaction force, have you fired your mortars or military. you have a few mi-35's and make sure they are out there. we are working mb-530. we will continue to work that. they won't have much for the next fighting season but we'll continue to develop it and fix-wing capability and a-29. so that will continue to grow. once we get closer to the aviation support and work on

the sustainment and build their special forces capability, i will feel much better. the chair: mr. briody bridenstine. mr. bridenstine: the president's capability is to take it down to 5,000 troops in 2015. in your best professional judgment is that the right end strength? general campbell: about 5,500 by the end of december. the options that i provided is flexibility for president ghani to look at force protection and how to get to the train and advise and assist. mr. bridenstine: the forces lost over 20,000 personnel to desergses and deaths. does that concern you? general campbell: if you put it into context and i think we are working processes and procedures to make sure that

doesn't have a great impact. any dessert go, it concerns the president. but it is about having processes in place to bring those people on board to keep them in and it isn't about the combat casualties. that's a fraction of it but looking at them and saying are they getting paid. mr. bridenstine: is there a correlation between our drawdown, cutting our troops by half and their desertions? general campbell: my gut would tell me no. bide mr. bridenstine: you discuss the islamic state and as the commander of forces in afghanistan, you suggest that isis is one of your priority intelligence components.

what is going on with isis in afghanistan that makes it a priority intelligence requirement? general campbell: i have several of those. that is not my only p.i.r. as we look at in talking to president ghani and did a deep divide with the intelligence agencies inside of afghanistan to look at what they are doing i said i needed to learn more and make it a p.i.r. for my intelligence folks. as we go through a number of things, as we allocate resources, because it is a p.i.r., it will get more -- a better look at it and provide me more continued updates. that's why i did that, concern for president ghani and concern for me. the term out there is nays ent. it is a nacent organization. it grew quickly in iraq and

syria, they can jump over different stageses. making a p.i.r. gives me better visibility on it. mr. bridenstine: press reports in early indicate that one was killed in afghanistan in a drone strike. the "washington post" called him a figure actively recruiting for isis in afghanistan, specifically, hell monday where coalition troops withdrew in october. can you confirm these reports. this is in the "washington post. general campbell: a lot of media that he was designated as a deputy amir of isil in afghanistan, the amir of pakistan and afghanistan in that area. was actually a t.t.p. and he said i'm a deputy.

and -- mr. bridenstine: before you -- i have one minute left. general campbell: the answer is yes. mr. bridenstine: when you think of him, he was a taliban commander and was detained at gitmo, released and we turned him over to the afghan detention facility and escaped and became a recruiter for isis. general campbell: he was underneath of afghan control. mr. bridenstine: as we look at it coming forward, we have to make decisions about gitmo. does it concern that our troops in afghanistan are fighting the same enemy twice? general campbell: concerns me they are fighting the enemy once or twice. mr. bridenstine: is closing gitmo at this time knowing that 30% of the people are going

back into the war, is that good or bad judgment. general campbell: that's a policy question and i'm a military guy. i want to make sure i have the ability to do if people are going to come back into afghanistan, i have the ability to make sure i'm comfortable with the assurances that afghanistan or whatever country makes, that i have the ability to make sure whatever assurances that these people will not attack coalition forces. i want to make sure i'm tied into that. the chair: mr. veezey. veezeveeze i want to ask a couple of questions based on popular opinion poll and talking about afghan expressing confidence in the new government. do you have any sort of sense how afghan's confidence is concerned with afghan capabilities post-u.s. or post-u.s. drawdown? general campbell: like anything else, they understand the

capability of just having the coalition with them provides and a lot of them is giving them confidence. as i look at that, i get asked close air support, don't plan your operation wholly dependent upon close air support. the taliban doesn't have close air support. they don't have humvees or how itsers or the weapons you have. part of it is leadership and the confidence to take this fight to the enemy. if you go out on the streets of kabul and engage with 85% or 80-plus percent of the people, they are thankful for the coalition and they are comfortable. it also provides the opportunity to engage, jobs, that kind of thing. i think they would tell you

they feel comfortable with the coalition presence. mr. veasey: what about a u.s. drawdown, how would that be perceived in the terror community? do you think the people in the terror community, taliban or even outside the taliban or outside of afghanistan, how do they view the afghan capability as far as being able to protect their own country? general campbell: i go back, if i could answer the last one in more detail. there was, i think at different points of time a sense of abandonment if you talk to some afghans. the security forces as they get the message out and show the afghan people what they are capable ever and that increases their confidence that the afghan security forces can handle this. there was abandonment type discussions going on. i haven't seen that as the afghan security forces continues to get better and

better. in the terror community that you talked about, i think they were thinking that the coalition would be gone after 2014. and that they would wait that out with the b.s.a. and sofa now signed, that for many years, we will have a continued commitment by the international community to remain in afghanistan and in the resources provided to afghanistan. i think the time has come they have to become part of the political process and have to get back into -- they can't have afghans killing afghans and muslims killing muslims and it is a sign of strength that the president signed the b.s.a. and sofa and the message that is sent to the terrorist community, we thought it's going to go away and it's not. the chair: mr. cook. mr. cook: i want to commend you and your testimony, years of

service and combat piece adding up all the deployments you have been through. what i wanted to address is something that isn't here and it's of concern to our nato partners, maybe under the radar and that's the situation of the poppy and the drugs and the corruption that from a rational viewpoint it affects us. how are we doing on -- can you comment on the status of that and where it's going right now? general campbell: sir, thanks for the question. there have been a lot of different reports on the cultivation of poppies and the impact of that and financially for the insurgents. a lot of that coming out of the area. it has increased the last couple of years as opposed to going down. the president has talked about it.

he is looking hard at a strategy of how he goes after that and deals with people that produce it, deals with the insurgents that use it for their gain. they looked at different options down there. they have quite a good record of a small task force that goes after and seizes different places and for lack of a better term, drug labs that produce what comes out of there. but quite frankly, it has not been enough and the strategy has not taken it away from the insurgents. that is not part of my t.a.a. or c.t. mission, so i can't comment further on that piece of it. but bottom line, it does provide fuel, financial assistance to the taliban and we have to take -- and the government of afghanistan is looking hard at how they can combat that. mr. cook: thank you. the relationship with pakistan obviously has improved quite a bit.

the military. the equipment, one time, we are always concerned about the equipment backlog going through pakistan and everything else. are we in pretty good shape on that where containers are backed up to the sky and quick update on that. general campbell: thanks for the question. the logistical community and what we have done with equipment is phone no, ma'amon. when people fully understand the amount of equipment that came out and how it came out. this is record-setting. and we are on glide path now. and all the numbers we thought we needed to hit coming out of the mission to where we are today, we are on those numbers. so i feel very, very comfortable.

it ebba and flows through down in the south based on the relationship with pakistan. but the relationship with pakistan today and afghanistan is the best i have seen it in all the times i have been over there and a lot of that is because of chief of the army in pakistan and president ghani and their relation of how they come together. but the retrograde is on glide slope. mr. cook: i was happy to hear that. i want to switch to uzbekistan uzbekistan in the north. land-locked country, they have to have good relations with pakistan. iran is a whole new ball game. what's the relationship with uzbekistan? i know they were working on that bridge or i think it was the train that was going down there. is that still ongoing? general campbell: i haven't seen a final piece where they signed a memorandum of understanding. i know president ghani has personally reached out to all the countries in the region and visited many of them. i don't think in the last couple of months he visited uzbekistan, but has talked to

the senior leadership. they talked about the rail and the bridges and sharing of intelligence back and forth and how they can fight different insurance. a lot in the north is around criminal activity as opposed to the insurgent piece. there is arms trafficking and drugs trafficking and working together. he has asked senior members of his administration, two different countries -- i could find out, but several members of senior positions in afghanistan have gone to visit uzbekistan as well. mr. cook: thank you for your service. i yield back. the chair: ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth: thank you for being here today. as a time of sequestration when we are cutting our funding for forces here in the u.s. and looking at everything from shutting down economies areas on bases and adjusting benefits for our forces, we are looking at future expenditures in

afghanistan. i have concerns about how they are spending the money that we are providing them with the resource and specifically you had mentioned their lack of self-sustaining capability. i would like to look at their ability to account for personnel. where we talk already the over 20,000 troops' attrition in the afghan forces that has been reported. i rely on the special inspector general's report as to what's going on there and there have been real concerns. the number of afghan military and police forces fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter as much as 20,000 to 40,000 personnel and i'm worried we are spending this money and not spending as much on our u.s. forces here.

are those 40,000 troop fluctuations, is that an accounting error? those folks were never there or they quit or we are paying for ghost soldiers that were on the books? can you talk a little bit how we are providing oversight for the afghans and help to them to figure out how they can get a handle on their forces and how they are spending this money we are providing. general campbell: thank you for your service as well. that is a very, very tough complex to get your hands around. in our own army, we have a hard time, sometimes figuring out who is present for duty and who is not. many of the figures you have seen in the last several days in numbers, first off, we need to make sure members of

congress have total transparency on everything we are doing inside of afghanistan and we are committed to provide congress everything they need to do that. some of the things are classified and back in august time frame, so this is not a new story. but back in august, i asked to look at the information that was going out to the press and everybody else. and i said anything that is readiness data that could be construed as ready -- readiness data and that needs to be classified. we are wholly dependent upon the afghans for our own force protection and became more so that i needed to have the readiness data classified. all of our services' data is classified, as you know. that decision was made in august. i reafffirmed with president ghani about having that data classified.

again here in the last two weeks or so, i said i want to make sure you are comfortable because i'm getting asked a lot of questions on this. he was adamant that afghan data that pertained to readiness data was classified. i feel comfortable where we are at. and as has been reported that i have changed my mind, i have not. readiness data remains classified. the last report that came out a couple days ago, what happened there, and again, i want to make sure they have everything to do their job and congress has the information as well, but numbers reported and numbers where you get that information comes from many different sources and there is a report called the 1230 report, and that is sort the -- that's the baseline and that's where the numbers need to come from and they understand it as well.

some of the reports you saw and some of the zrep answer si were quarrel reports and they came from maybe lower headquarters where members went down to lower headquarters and said what are your numbers? we need to do a much better job to make sure we have processes in place to provide the right data at the right time. and we are working on that. i just signed a standard operating procedure to consolidate how we work that. we have over 50, probably 62 audits going on inside afghanistan. 60-plus. as we have transitioned and brought our numbers down, i don't have the people in country to do all that. i'm dependent on reach back or otherwise and we have to figure out how we provide audit data but at the same time continue to transition. and i don't have that capability. i have to raise that with my own leadership as we go forward. but the numbers you saw the last couple of days, there is a miscommunication. when i learned through the "new

york times" that these numbers are going to be replaced, i contacted them and said we need to take a hard look at this data. i don't think it's right. i alerted them to that and stopped the release of that piece and we are looking hard how we can make sure everyone gets the right data. hopefully that answers your question. >> thank you. the chair: mr. scott. mr. scott: if there's one thing we've learned over the last several months it is that the people of the country have to be willing to hold that country and i'm speaking specifically of iraq. afghanistan, obviously, a very different country. i think that from the context of the american citizen, maybe the way it's talked about the perception is it's all one and the same issue, if you will. i do think that we need to do a better job of getting that

message out when we do have the victories because all america is hearing right now is the bad that's happening in the middle east. thank you for your service. i want to talk about an issue you talked about, obviously in order for afghanistan to be a success they have to hold the taliban -- hold back the taliban and other terrorist organizations, when we are hopefully pleatly out of there. the afghanistan air force, the a-29 light air support mission right now is currently, they're being trained at moody air force base in valdosta. if you can just speak to that element, how critical it is, the air support, and the afghanistans being able to carry out their own air support long-term and how many a-29's do you expect we should be prepared to provide for the afghanistan air force?

general campbell: thank you for that question. it is a very long process. i wish we would have started years ago. but we are where we are and i think what's happening there training the pilots, training the maintainers for the fixed wing close air support capability is critical for afghanistan and our air force to move to the future. we can't get it quick enough for them. the current program has about 20 years, we won't have any for this fighting season, 2015. we'll get some before the start of fighting season in 2016 most will come out in 2017 and 2018. that's why we need to continue this train, advise, and assist at least on the air force piece. it is a great, great capability. they're looking forward to it. i think it will give them and the people in that region will understand that the afghans

have this great close air support capability. we'll work in other ways to work that here in the near term with forward firing machine guns with md-530, this little bird i talked about. and they do have 120 mortars howitzers, that will can't to work with them on different ways to improve that capability. but this is a huge asset they're looking forward to getting inside of afghanistan. mr. scott: we have to make sure when we leave that country the country is prepared to hold and govern thems. the situation in iraq right now is certainly lessons learned the hard way, if you will. mr. chairman, i have no further questions. thank you for the a-29 mission. if we can ever host you at moody air force base, be happy to have you town there. with that, i yield back the remained over my time. the chair: mr. kourtney. mr. courtney: -- chip mr.

courtney: -- the chair: mr. courtney. mr. courtney: tomorrow at hartford there's going to be a sendoff for the connecticut national guard 192nd battalion heading off to afghanistan and you know, first of all, they were given notice almost 16 days ago to the day that they were being sent over and i realize this is not in your lane in terms of making the decisions about reaching into guard and reserve units. but frankly folks are scratching their heads, we're at a force level of about 10,000, guard and reserve, there was an understanding and acceptance back in the surge days, when we had hundreds of thousands of people over in the middle east, you know, tapping into the guard at this point and frankly doing it with

almost the bare notice required by law is something that again folks are struggling with. so first of all, i guess i would ask you, i don't mean to put you on the spot but if you were in front of those families tomorrow night, you know what you would share with them, i'm not asking you to explain the decision making process because i realize that happens somewhere else in terms of your command but again as their leader over in afghanistan what would be your thoughts that you would share with the families. general campbell: thank you. again, the army, all our service couldn't do what we do without our military families, i'd first thank them for their sacrifice, for having to allow us to have that soldier continue to serve. i'd tell them that what they're getting ready to do, two things, it's a very, very important mission, will mean a great deal to the afghan people but also provides for our own security back here. i'd ask them to watch out for each other and always take care of brothers and sisters on

their left and right to make sure that force protection is always foremost in their mind. i'd ask that they don't get complacent. but they do have a very, very important job. many times what i tell the soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines over there, they're too close to it. they can't see the changes we talked about earlier. people serve for different reasons but they do serve because they know that they're serving for the greater good. when they come to afghanistan, i tell them, you know, whatever you do, make that place better than when you found it. i think i've seen over the years everybody continues to do that. they'll have an impact on whatever they do, whoever they touch. again sometimes it's an impact they can't put into words but i would tell you their service would be honored and that they will feel good about what they've done after they leave there. i can't speak to the service provider piece, for many, many years, our national guard, our u.s. army reserve, have played

an important role back in iraq and afghanistan and will continue as we move forward and so i appreciate their service. mr. courtney: thank you. i will share those thoughts. frankly, as we've wrestled with the draw down and force reduction and sequestration and budget control act, it sort of has reignited a little bit of the sort of tension about whether or not the guard and reserve really are on parity in terms of the rest of forces and again the fact that they got this order to head over, you know, at a time when maybe the average person wouldn't think that kind of is consistent with the rest of the force level underscores to me the value that active duty still a-- believes exists in terms of the guard and reserve units. and they have done yeomen's work in iraq and afghanistan and they deserve all the kudos and appreciation we can

possibly give them. so again, thank you for your comments and again, i'll pass them along. i yield back. the chair: thank the gentleman. mr. jones. mr. jones: thank you. general campbell, thank you and your staff for being here today. i'm going to take a different approach. i looked at your narrative and the comment by senator levin, who is now retired and said, i cite these public opinion polls americans, 65%, 70% think we haven't received anything and he's critical of the people that don't think we've achieved anything by saying at the end of it and people that are 7,000 miles away think we haven't. well i would say to the senator it's those people back home that are paying the bills. they need to get something out of the tax dollars that they're paying. when we went into afghanistan in 2001, the debt of our nation

was $5.95 trillion. today it is other $1 trillion in debt. -- it is over $18 trillion in debt. you know from your brothers and sisters in the military what we're faced with with budgets. all right. then, i read in a blog yesterday from someday jason ditz, between casualties and desertion, the afghan military is shrinking fast. the desertion problem is a long standing one, with many afghans signing up if they are military, sticking around long enough to get their first paycheck and then bailing and often taking their weapons with them as they -- as a sort of severance package. then in "the guardian" yesterday, afghan officials sanction murder, torture, rape says report. now i realize that this is from human watch and we can have our

views on that, there's a lib -- whether it's a liberal group or conservative group or whatever that's fair. but they still write this and apparently there's been no dispute. i'll read just one paragraph. the report focuses on eight commanders and officials across afghanistan. some of them counted among the country's most powerful men and key allies for foreign troops. some are accused of personally inflicting violence. others of having responsibility for malicious or government -- if militias or government forces that commit the crimes. i know some good thibs are happening, i don't question that at all, but we are -- afghanistan has been proven to be the wild west. what my concern is, we've got nine more years of a financial commitment and a military commitment which might be limited in numbers but they're still young men and women out there walking the roads to be shot at and have their legs

blown off, i just wonder because we in congress are going to be grappling with sequestration this year. the chairman and ranking member who are doing a great job, are very concerned about the military budget and i think all of us here are as well. i know i am, i have camp lejeune down in my district. but i get to a point that i just wonder, not talking about you, sir, you're an outstanding, great military person, but will there p ever be anyone in the diplomatic corps or the military that say you know, we've done about all we can do. some things are impossible. yes some people will benefit but when i read reports like this, whether they be from the left or the right, pat buchanan is one of my biggest pee heros ron paul is one of my dearest friends, and i continue to see nine more years of spending money that we don't have so we can decrease the number in our

military. it doesn't make any sense. i know you don't make the policy decisions, i understand that, but will there ever be someone who follows behind you and follows behind me that will be honest to the congress and the american people who have to pay the bill that we've done about as much as we can do? general campbell: sir, thanks for the question. i'd answer like this. again, you know, quite frankly this is the world we live in. maybe not the world we want. and i think the complexity of the world we live in is a generational piece that's going to go on long after you and i are out of here. and we need to understand that. and look at it as a generational issue and put strategies and policies into place that will get at this long term. it's not going to change overnight and i think we just have to change our mindset on where we're at. i think the american people are well-served by the great men

and women who continue to raise their right hand and serve knowing that they can go into harm's way. knowing that despite, try to do something bigger than themselves, that they're going to face going into service that's going to have budget issues that it's going to take away. and so i think this is a long-term issue we have to get at. but what i'm pleased about is that, you know you mentioned all those different reports, and there are challenges, not only in afghanistan but many places in the world, i do see afghanistan as a place, because of the significant investment in lives and financial that we have provided to them that this can be the bright spot. that this is, for lack of a better term, a strategic win that will carry on in this part of the world as a very complex dangerous part of. and for very little continued investment, we can make this a shining light of central asia and that part of the world and i think we've got to start someplace. afghanistan is the good news story among all these other bad things coming out.

for every bad news report you mentioned, there's probably nine or 10 good news that don't get out because as you know, gd news doesn't sell. i give the president over there a good news story board that talks about the good things afghans are doing in different areas. when i meet with him, i say, mr. president, dr. abdullah, here's some good news stories. you're not hearing it in the news, but you need to know this is happening. i give him 10 or 15 power point slides with pictures. that word doesn't get out because it doesn't sell but for every suicide vest that went off in kabul, there are nine or 10 that are stopped. there are good news out there. the chair: the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo. ms. bordallo:: i want to quote the national security plan

saying, we must recognize that a smart national security strategy doesn't rely solely on military power. indeed in the long-term our efforts to work with other countries to counter the ideology and root causes of violent extremists will be more important. i strongly support this approach, general, however, i'm also concerned that the persistence we have shown in afghanistan and our presence there can have harmful effects on our long-term readiness. as we draw down to a force capable of protecting our security interests in the region, how will we capitalize and reutilize the equipment, and i know this was brought up earlier, that we currently have in country to protect the readiness of our total force? specifically, can you comment on retrograde efforts as they are supported in the f.y. 2016 budget and what impact sequestration would have on

this effort if sequestration is not repealed? general campbell: thank you, ma'am. thank you for your visit last fall, as well. looking at the numbers for f.y. 2016, i would say we will continue to need the financial resources to bring back the retrograde we have in afghanistan to put back in the force here, probably 80% of that now is for the army but the very best equipment we have is in afghanistan so we need to continue and make sure we get that back, get it reset and get that into the force. i do think we're going going to do that. we had some concerns a year, year and a half ago but as a commander on the ground, i don't have those same concerns and will continue to get that back to the army. sequestration from a different perspective, i think, will impact the read i -- readiness of all our services. that's why i think all the services have come out and said it would have a really, really

bad impact if we go to sequestration. ms. bordallo: thank you. recently, the first lady of afghanistan said women come to me and say, you have foferingten us. i am -- forgotten us. i am a strong champion of women's right and wonder what can we do working with the afghans and nato to ensure that women's rights are respected across the country as we continue to draw down our forces? how are we encouraging or working with the afghan government to ensure greater inclusion of women in civic society? and a few years back, i traveled with speaker -- then-speaker, leader pelosi, we visited many of the women leaders in afghanistan. and they were very, very concerned about the future. so can you comment on that general? general campbell: thank you, ma'am. we work very hard both from a coalition perspective but also president ghani works very hard to make sure he's working on the women issue -- on gender

issues. both getting women into the police and the army, the money $25 million congress has approved for this specifically pinpointed to work on these type of issues is very, very helpful and we're thankful for that support. but it will take time for the police and the army and the police are doing much better than the army, quite frankly on integrating women into the force, but we'll look hard as as we go through that. some of the cultural differences make that fuffer. but i think they're both committed from the o.o. -- r.o.i.. we're always looking at ways to improve, i want to say 24% of parliament is women, i don't think we have in our own congress so that's very good in afghanistan. so president gaw nee and the first lady -- ghani and the first lady di have put a lot of work into this and reaching out

as well. i do have a gender advisor from my force from australia, actually that focuses on a lot of different activities going on to see how we can do that much better. she engages with nato and all our nate toe and partner fores as well to ensure we're doing everything we can to enrich this and keep emphasis on it. ms. bordallo: thank you, general, for your comments. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: thank the gentlelady. dr. when strup. mr. when -- dr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: thank you general. i would agree with you whole heartedly, i think it was a great move by ghani to sign a b.s.a. and sofa, i think that bodes well for all of us. i think it was probably wise for all of -- from where i sit for ghani and abdullah to come together as partners.

so my question is, what are you seeing as far as that relationship between the two of them and its effect on any national unity in afghanistan? general campbell: that's a great question. i look at this every day and i think that both president ghani and dr. abdullah gave up some to have afghanistan as a nation continue to move forward. they both did that after a long period there as they worked together and as i see both of them, many times both together and separately, i think they complement each other as they work together. they both have great vision for where they want to take afghanistan and you know, it really is the people around each of them, i think they have to continue to work through and they've run into instances where they've had differences but i think they work hard to make sure as they come out to the public they have one voice as they move forward. that's not easy all the time but i think they understand how important it is so they work toward that both from a

security perspective and then from an economic perspective. again, i think they complement each other and i'm honored to have the opportunity to engage with both of them quite a few times every week. >> in a sense has that carried over to the military in some ways as far as unity and cohesion amongst the military and the morale within the military, the afghan forces? general campbell: yes. president ghani is a commander in chief, so his interaction with security forces is totally different than where we were under president karzai, the morale, it's gone way up just knowing they have someone that cares for their welfare, that's visited them at training sites visited their wounded in hospitals, that's talked to them about changing the authorities for core commanders on what they can and can't do. he has video teleconferences several times since i've been with him with the senior leadership.

he has national security council meeting every week that brings in the leadership if the police and army. again, i think they are thankful that they do have a commander in chief that's taken not only their own welfare but also their family's welfare as he loobs for ways to help out wounded warriors and different things. it is quite good. mr. wenstrup: with that in mind, since they have not been in office very long, you have questions come up about deserters, do you anticipate that rate will slow down as a result? general campbell: how i try to make that tie new york i think president ghani, what he's trying to do is put leadership in that can make a difference. he's taking a look at all of his generals, retired on order of about 60 generals since he's been -- general officers since he's been -- as the president. they hadn't had any retimes in the last four or five years under president karzai. so in the last four months or so they have had about

60-plus. that's infusing new blood, he's looking hard at the people he puts in those positions, trying to interview every one of his general officers or people he promotes to be general officer he's trying to put them based on merit which i think is very good. leadership is going to change the attrition. what happens on attrition, part of it is combat casualties that's only a small piece. desertion, if you look at why people desert, and they have instituted an attrition working group in the army, it went dormant for a while, we've instituted that back up to make sure we get after that issue but when you look at it, it is leadership, it is having a soldier assigned to the 215th he willman has been there four year, all he knows is combat after combat after combat, they have a red, amber, green thing they can take leave, have training and then fight. so they're just now starting to have that cyclic force

generation that gives them that ability. wubs they get that in place i do think you'll see the desertion piece go way down. part of it is they're assigned to the 215th, you get down there and see no future about being rotated to another corps and you're always going to be on there because their personnel management, how they do talent management is not right. they're move fwargd that. but if you're in the 215th and you live up north, it takeous you days to get back there, or you may never get back there. or when you do get back there, your family is trying to harvest and you may go back 20 days past your leave, so you're a deserter. i think leadership will make a difference. mr. wenstrup: those sound like logical things to address. if i may, just one more quick question. what percentage of the medical care being given in theater right now is coming from american personnel, would you

estimate? general campbell: for the afghans? mr. wenstrup: for the wounded warriors, is it u.s. physicians and surgeons taking care of the wounded predominantly? general campbell: they have their own medical staff. i a sat down with their surgeon general, but they have regional hospitals and we have some advisors at different places that continue to work through that. but they only come to a coalition facility like a bagram if it's a very, very worst case they can't handle and that's been very few instances since i've been there. mr. wenstrup: thank you very very much. we'll have an opportunity to meet with you in a classified setting later, and i appreciate it. the chair: ms. tsongas. ms. tsongas: i've appreciated

your knowledge and very nuanced testimony. i want to follow up on congresswoman bordallo's last comment. as a member of congress i've made six trips to afghanistan and four with delegation of women, generally three republican con gregs -- congresswomen and three democratic congresswomen and our goal really has been two-fold. it's been over mother's day so to thank our women soldiers, often we commiserate with them know how hard it is to be away from home on mother's day, as it is for all those serving, but we've also had the real opportunity to see the gapes that have been made for women in afghanistan. and while they're not as widespread as we would like, i think kabul has been a prime -- a prime ben fish careary of them and other urban settings but nevertheless those gains have been real. your reports show that in terms of health care, access to education, access to work, although, however limbed. so as we're drawing down, our

concern really is that those gains are not somehow traded away. and as you talked about president ghani reaching out and referencing the taliban in his inaugural speech, i can tell you that as we meet with women over there, those comments send chills through them. because we know how terribly they suffered under the taliban regime. so i think our concern, our bipartisan concern, has become you know, how do we protect the gains that have been made? and was we've -- and as we've talked today about some of the differences about afghanistan and iraq, it seems to me that one of them has really been the signing of the bilateral security agreement and that it has set up a very different framework. i think has given us leverage, a role, a role in afghanistan as it transitions to its next phase. so i'm curious, while the security situation is really your role and many of these

other gains have been investments that have come about through other parts of our presence there, how you see the united states role using its ongoing relationship with the government to make sure that, let's just say negotiations do go forward with the taliban, how we make sure, he howe we use our leverage there, how you use your leverage representing the united states to make sure that women's gains remain on the table and they are somehow not traded away as others argue for a path forward in which the taliban are brought into the government. general campbell: ma'am, thank you for your visits, thank you for your question. i think leadership has a big deal here to play. again, i think the difference here is that president ghani and dr. abdullah are very committed to this. it is written in their constitution. so as they work with the taliban, if there's reconciliation down the road, i think one of the key parameters there will be if the constitution will hold and inside the constitution it

talks about respect of women's rights. so again, i think with the first lady, with president ghani, with the team at the embassy work the 30 or 40-plus ambassadors i interact with periodically they all have this upper most in their mind, comes up in different settings, different meetings i'm at. it's sort of a drum beat that president ghani, dr. abdullah and other senior ministries continue to hear and they understand how important it is that they abide by their constitution, where they want to go. i think leadership will make a difference and they understand that in my realm, the security realm, everything is conditions based. this is sort of the same way as we look forward in this area it could be conditions based and everything we do through different n.g.o.'s, we make

conditions based, and i think leadership wan make that happen. ms. tsongas: i remember a hearing we had here a woman who is a leader of one of the n.g.o.'s over there, said the first indication that things are not going well for women over there is the street, if you stop seeing women on the street that does come back to the role of the afghan national police are you confident that they are up to the task and if not, do you see how -- how would we challenge them to do it bet her general campbell: the police have done much better on integrating women into those in favor say aye force, they're doing much better now in understanding how they have to deal with communities and understanding community policing as we did a deep dive back in december on all the security, inside of kabul, we talked about the high profile attacks, one way of getting after that was having a police force that had community policing on their mind and understood what that meant. as we mentioned earlier by one of the members, president ghani

made a change on the district commanders inside kabul, made a change here. they've been talking about that for a while. he just did that. i think that will -- as i travel around the streets of kabul, the streets are bustling a lot of women are out and around and so that indicates that that continues to build. i think this will be a challenge for leadership keeping a spotlight on this, having the international community make sure they understand how important it is and if they don't continue to abide by this, there's a conditionality you take away something. whether it's financial, they're very dependent on the donor nations right now. i think conditions have to go on this. i know they're working hard on this and are dedicated toward that. but there will be challenges as they move forward. and it's going to take time. as i talk about within their army they have a goal, a very hard goal of getting 10% into their army, they're less than 1% today.

trying to work toward that. but i look at my own army, after 239 years, we're at about 15%. so it's going to take time. it's harder based on the cultural differences they have there but i think they are committed to working at this very hard. ms. tsongas: thank you general. thank you for your testimony. the chair: general, i mentioned to you i thought the questions would be better starting from the bottom or the more junior members and i think the questioning has been excellent today. i think we've touched on a lot of topics. you've had a number of questions about isis or isil. and i realize that you're not here as a lawyer and that you haven't read, studied carefully the implications of what the president has proposed, and i heard you say that at this point, isis is a nascent threat although -- in afghanistan, although one you're watching very carefully. but as we explore this aumf

that the president has requested for isis, thinking about how it would work for people like you, whether we're talking about afghanistan, syria, iraq or whatever, one of the concerns is that it has more restrictions on isis than the current aumf has on al qaeda. and some of these groups live side-by-side. and so to me, there's just a commonsense concern here that if you've got two different standards to go after two different terrorist groups, how do you have the intelligence to know which is which? and then operationally, how do you have -- you have to have a lawyer by your side to make every single decision. i mean, isn't that -- if it comes to be that way, and this is a big if, and again i'm not trying to put you on the spot either, but operationally would that not be a matter of concern? general campbell: sir, thanks for ecle -- thanks for the question. any commander on the ground

would tell you he wants as much flexibility as he can get. any policy that provides commanders on the ground the flexibility to make decisions in a timely manner is something that i would -- i'll be in favor of. you are right, though, the insurgents, and i can only speak for afghanistan but the insurgents inside of afghanistan, in many cases feed off each other. and they're interrhetted in many different ways and you may have one that provides finance food, lodging to one, one that may provide weapons and secure routes for another. but some fight each other internally. but also it is very, very tough as we take a hard look at it to separate some of these organizations, where what i do have right now is the authority to prosecute those that come after the coalition and that's how i take a look at it as i try to bend those is that those -- bin those, not by their status by by their conduct come after coalition forces. mr. thornberry: the reason

we're in afghanistan to begin with is because that was the place a plot was launched that ultimately killed 3,000 americans. what can you tell us about your assessment of al qaeda's core ability to reconstitute itself were it not to be under constant pressure from us? general campbell: thanks again for that question. i think we have to make sure we understand the threat and how the threat will continue to evolve, the continued pressure we provide now with our very credible c.t. capable, the very best in the world, i believe has prevented another attack on the homeland and i do believe if you don't have pressure continued pressure on a.q. that

it would be a matter of time they would regenerate that capability. mr. thornberry: under the current draw down plan, would your ability to gather intelligence for the c.t. mission be significantly downgraded in this calendar year? general campbell: as i look at it, i'd much rather go into a classified session with you to discuss that piece. mr. thornberry: i sure don't want to get into details -- general campbell: any time you go from one number to another you have to make very, very tough decisions on where you balance that and as i talked before, force protection is up most in my mind. i.s.r. and other pieces do provide continued force protection for me. and so, you know, i look at it

very hard and i have to balance that and so those numbers, you've got to make some tough decisions on where you take that and then what i have to do if i don't feel comfortable with that, i have to make sure i come forward to my senior leadership and provide them what i believe the risk of force is and risk of mission. is mr. thornberry: i appreciate that. i'm thinking from a commonsense measure, if you're in fewer places around the country you have fewer opportunities to gather intelligence, including force protection and on counterterrorism mission as well which is of concern to me. just to clarify, and i think you answered this earlier, all the high value terrorists who were in our custody have now been turned over to afghan custody, correct? general campbell: not all afghan, they've been turned over to some other third countries as well but i do not have any detainee, i don't have

detention authorities after 1 january. mr. thornberry: they have all gone somewhere but not necessarily to afghans? yen campbell: that's correct. mr. thornberry: we had general austin here yesterday and i'm struck by the number of members on this committee on both sides of the aisle who have served in iraq and afghanistan and feel very strongly that they do not want the sacrifice that his been made in afghanistan to -- i hate to sago to waste but there is tremendous frustration at what's happened in iraq and you've got a sense of that today. i know, from your service and from those who serve under you you share that determinations to make sure that whether we're

talking taxpayer dollars or american lives that the sacrifice is upheld and honored and that it is not wasted because of policy decisions. the only thing i'd request of you is as you watch this situation in afghanistan probably closer than anybody else, if you believe that we are headed down the wrong path i.e. headed down a path we went down in iraq, i know this committee expects and requests you to raise a flag to us as well as your chain of command and say, this is headed in the wrong path because this committee obviously shares what i have no doubt is your commitment to make sure that all of that sacrifice these last 14 years results in a stable, relatively peaceful

afghanistan from which terrorists cannot, again launch attacks against us. so i appreciate that, sir. you're welcome to say anything you want. mr. campbell: sir, absolutely. i'm committed to that. that's what i owe my leadership in congress, to give you the best advice going forward. thank you for your leadership as well. mr. thornberry: thank you, sir. appreciate you answering our yeses today. with that the hearing stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> next, q&a with author david o. stewart talking about his book madison's gift. and then your calls and comments on "washington journal."

today a conference on public transportation as the american public transportation association meets in washington, d.c. looking at the legislative agenda on capitol hill. and update from the u.s. department of transportation and issues affecting public transit and inner city passenger rail with transportation secretary anthony fox among the speakers. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new drabts in the house and 12 new republicans and 1 new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress including the first african american woman in the house.

announcer: this week on "q&a," our guest is david stewart. his new book, "madison's gift: five partnerships that built america", focuses on the central role that james madison played in the founding of our nation and the relationship he had with george washington, alexander hamilton, thomas jefferson, his wife, and james monroe. brian lamb: david stewart, your book, what was madison's gift? david stewart: it is a double meaning. his gift is the ability to form

remarkable partnerships with the great people of his era. but it also alludes to his gift to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. brian lamb: you were a clerk in the supreme court. on the circuit court of appeals. you are a clerk to davis babylon. what did you see when you were a clerk of madison's impact on the way that the courts operate? david stewart: in the courts of appeals, i didn't feel that i saw much. in the supreme court, and i was there a year of course, you are dealing with basic constitutional issues. you are always going back to the federalism. that is the most immediate

impact that madison -- the constitution is not self-executing or self explaining. the federalist has had an enduring impact in terms of what did they really think they were doing, how did the different parts of the constitution work together. that was the most immediate impact. brian lamb: you write about the federalist papers. what did you learn that surprised you? david stewart: i enjoyed -- what i enjoyed most was the language of it and the way hamilton and madison organized it. john jay wrote a few essays, but it is mostly a production my hamilton and madison. that was the great partnership that produced the federalist. they weren't natural partners. but they put together this remarkable effort, which involved about six weeks of working together, and then two extended solo terms.