i think that is wrong. we are who we are. candidate is what it is -- it is because we know better is always possible. an economy that works for the middle-class means a country that works for everyone. not in spite of our differences but because of them. more of both of those things. after 10 years of mr. harper, so do we. i am in this and i want to be your prime minister. mr. wells: thank you, mr. trudeau. this concludes the first debate of the campaign. the whole experiment was a bit of a new experience for everyone concerned and i want to thank the leaders for the faith when participate. good luck on the campaign trail.

on behalf of maclean's, i want to thank the viewers for tuning in tonight. be sure to visit the ma maclean's website. stay tuned. i am paul wells. good night from toronto. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the potential effect of the middle east. live at noon, is eastern on c-span.

with the senate and its august break, will feature programming on c-span 2. at the end of the summer, look on the special programs saturday, september 5. we will be live from the nation's capital for the national book festival. on sunday, we have the live in-depth program. tv on cspan 2, television for serious readers. atcoming up next, a look u.s.-china relations. then, afghanistan operations commander about the training of afghan forces and other challenges in the region. later, a discussion on the future of mexico.

: ur attention to u.s. china relations. we want to welcome robert daly, who served as a cultural exchange officer. he now serves as the director of the kissinger institute in china and the u.s. at the wilson center. a state visit, his first official visit to washington, d.c. what can we expect? play toirst, for him to the audience at home. this is important to americans. it means a great deal to the and the chinese communist party. it is the first featured item of the nightly news. if you want to broadcast to china a sense that he is welcome -- welcomed as a respected major leader, so the primary audience is at home. he would want to speak with president obama and audiences but primarily china. people in china almost

demand state visits. very important to the rest of the world. america is an outlier. we do not wonder who is here. but for them, this is about the performance of power. whocially with xi jinping, presented himself as a strawman, that he is the answer, he is the leader the chinese want it. though they are often critical of the united states, that affirmation, united states confirming, it matters to xi jinping. what can you tell us about him? guest: he has painted himself as the new strongman. he has come in with four major components of leadership. one is he wants to strengthen china passes economic reform. to transform the structure of the economy away from one based on manufacturing for export to

one based on sustainable consumption proven growth domestically. he also wants to strengthening -- strengthening underpinnings for a strong economy. he is carrying out a massive anticorruption campaign. fourth and lastly, an ideology campaign. he's cracking down on intellectuals, lawyers, universities, think tanks, media, cultural figures, ngo's. support for the communist party, and the communist party passes control over all aspects of the agenda in china. welcome your calls and comments. the lines are open. of thest is robert daly wilson center. we keep hearing references to the amount of debt in china and one of the numbers? this is overplayed in the united states.

china owes 7.4% of our debt. ofoften hear they go most the nicest debt. the majority foreign owner p japan is almost the same amount. libya, ecuador, owns some american debt. in china, 7.4%. the notion they are our bankers and creditors and we have to dance to their tune, it is not true. shine a does not as a favor to us. they see it as the safest place. for someone who doesn't follow the nuances of what this means, explain the 7.5%. guest: china buys american bonds as a way to safely park some of its assets earns through exports. there is criticism within china

that instead of buying american bonds, they should use this to develop the american economy. it is not the case the china -- china will lend its money for overconsumption. the holdings of american debt as a favor. they do this for themselves because it is the best way to protect some of their assets. ares not the case that we in debt to china and therefore we have to tiptoe around china and major -- it is misrepresented here. the south china sea has become a point of contention around our allies. what is happening? issuesi think the many in his very complicated relationship are manageable for the most part. it looks like we face a true security dilemma in the western pacific. across -- draws a line. about 90% of the sea,

the seas that border on the philippines, indonesia, malaysia, vietnam, and many of these countries -- this is a long-standing issue. in line was first drawn 1947, not under the communist but they draw this line. it is on all of their maps. it is very important to them. very problematically, china has never said exactly where the line lies or what it means. there are policies that strongly imply they see this as a claim of territoriality. very much claiming to all of the land features of the area and what we call an exclusive economic zone. that would make the south china sea through which most of the trading -- training passes.

that area is often described as a chinese zone. it is unacceptable not only to us but to china passes neighbors as well. i am sure you know he has written a piece and it is available online at nytimes.com. this headline, "can u.s. and along?"t he makes his point. taiwan, to that, currency policy, and a host of new ones have been added. in that same articles, -- article, it is a good summary. he said something along the lines of, the united states must be prepared to give a zone of influence in the south china sea. this is problematic. the united states have been the primary guarantor of security in the area since world war ii.

has security umbrella allowed korea, japan, the other fast-growing asian economies, and china to focus on economic development rather than on an arms race. many of these countries distrust each other for historical reasons. we are at a point now where the united states would like to continue to play the role, to be the primary strategic actor in the region. china recognizes it has .enefited it feels it's time has no common it would like to play a larger role. inhink orville is correct saying the united states needs to find ways to perhaps chain -- give china some amount of the security guarantee that it needs. china is simply too powerful to ignore in this regard. the notion that china would get a sphere of influence, giving up on the idea of the global

commons, giving up an important aspect of international law, it would also involve weakening our guarantees to our allies. south via, japan especially, but also the philippines. a true security dilemma or each of us makes worst assumptions about each other's intentions, and you can see where this has become a downward spiral. host: phone lines are open. -- good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions for you. the first one is that american , i was told they

were paying universities in studentstrain indian and then to bring them over here to work in our medical field as doctors. have to addhing i is i remember lucille ball and different ones being called communists and the rich. and yet we are doing all this business with a communist in iran. the last thing is tpp. they do not even want to know anything about it. give it to him and he can handle it. when it comes to iran, they are all over it like you cannot trust it.

china was part of the p5 plus one to negotiate that. how would you respond to the sentiment? guest: 30 is a doctor shortage in the united states. , especially toms underserved areas in the united states. a part of those programs, you are right about that. in terms of doing business with communist china, you raised a question. as you suggested, it evokes the red scares. culturalations against and political figures. the chinese communist party is authoritarian in daily operations. it can be totalitarian when it feels there is a threat to the monopoly on power.

for a long time, it has not been meaningfully communist in any way. it is a one-party authoritarian state. out communismrry or believe in communism. it increasingly believes in controlled markets. it is the role passes number two economy. it will soon surpass the united states in terms of absolute economic volume. it must be dealt with. ofcannot ignore it because an aspect of governance we do not like any the united states benefits in many ways from a relationship with china. it is because of trade with china and low-cost goods at walmart and other supplies that american consumers were kept low even during the worst of the recent recession. we benefited.

lastly on the ttp, the is importantrty giving president obama the same kind of trade negotiating authority that all president obama's predecessors have had. this authority allows him to complete negotiations on the transpacific partnership. that deal will then be made public. period of analysis and commentary. when the final deal is negotiated and after we have seen it made public, i would not overstate republicans were anyone else's trust on the contents of the ttp yet. -- tpp yet. it will either go through or it will fail on those terms. follownother reason to us on twitter, we send you links to the articles we use on this program, including that piece in the new york times. can the u.s. and china get

along? brett is next in north carolina, republican line. with robert daly. good morning. nixon's opening china in that 1970's and what is happening in iran now with obama, do you see parallels in how that plays out in the long economically question my thank you. -- economically? thank you. guest: we tend to think about our relationship with china in economic terms now. went primarily to playing the china card, against a soviet union, a common enemy. china passes economic development, which has happened on a speed that is unprecedented, was not foreseen by president nixon or really anything -- anybody else at the time. the deal with iran is not

primarily an economic rationale either. if the the argument is deal goes through and works as we hope it will work, it will serve to open up iran, a large country with a highly educated population which, historically, was more integrated in western led orders. if they do open up and become more integrated, they could develop economically and perhaps change politically in a way that would be beneficial for the people of iran and the broader region. that is the argument. it is more simply an audi for now to get a deal through that it is a serious perdition. i do not take it too seriously. host: henry kissinger is out with a new book. what has he told you?

guest: his concern has always been united states near it -- need to deal china that is frank but also respectful of china in a way that isn't fond by china passes own traditions of diplomacy and governance. there are increasing calls for this now. for the first time in 35 years, we are seeing the beginning of a dissolution of a consensus. the idea that you have to work with china, you want to involve it in a complex set of situations. including the united states, and that those relationships would

gradually integrate china more closely with the rest of the world in a way that would make china not only a threat, but perhaps a boon to the united states and neighbors. fewt now, over the past months, we have had more and more voices, saying constructive engagement has failed, that the united states is in fact aided it that it -- and and that -- and embe and that it is time to scrap thisdded and emphasize the competitive side of the relationship. both aspects have always been up and we have tried to accentuate the positive and to keep the lines share of the relationships on the cooperative side. because of issues in the south of people innumber washington are calling for an emphasis on competitive for the announcement this is an adversarial relationship for calling china out on this but also increasing our power in the

western pacific in particular. i have not heard him speak specifically to some of the new calls for doing away with engagement, but this would call to his them a approach to china over the past 35 years. host: our guest served as a cultural officer in beijing at our embassy. is now the director of the kissinger institute in china and the u.s., part of the wilson center. greg is next from orlando, florida, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i live in hong kong for several years. he did not mention religion is one of the things that seemed to be changed there. like the closer we get to focusing on economic reforms and how it gets to u.s., the less

send we are about national tierney against christianity that happens when china becomes more focused on the communist government leadership. still some close friends in hong kong. wonder how that will change. does the u.s. look at that less theiry in order to keep economic development going back and forth at a better pace? there is a crackdown of sorts against christianity in china. this is ongoing. this has a number of aspects. it is legal to be a christian, catholic, a buddhist, a muslim. but you can only practice your byth under organization led

the china. if you are a protestant, you are supposed to be a member of the self patriotic church, a communist party church. a catholic church in china, with the vatican, also run by the communist already. as long as you worship within most churches, you will be for the most part left alone. there is an exception i will get to. as a matter of your faith practice, allowed to evangelize. you can worship but you cannot try to convert other non-christians or chinese to your face, nor are you allowed to see your courage is a social center that provides various kinds of good, educational, economic for your local community. in china,ious person you're not allowed to control social agendas. with chinayou work under your own leadership, you are allowed to practice your

faith. not unreasonably, they put big crosses on her churches. there are highly christianized communities in the south in towns that are now full of these ,arge crosses being twined out the claim is these are violations of various architectural and building codes. even people who work within the organizations, religious leaders of this is a violation chinese law and it is a strong backlash. your question suggests the kinds about religious freedom and human rights, they wax and wane, that we are not consistent about that. i think you are correct. also because of the increasing rightswn on human lawyers, freethinkers, that we will probably see a reemergence of ideological and human rights

concerns in the u.s. china relations. president xi jinping will be here in washington next month for a dinner at the white house. we will cover that on c-span networks. in pennsylvania, republican line with robert daley of the wilson center. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. one is, you have not mentioned at all the chinese and russian relationship, a very important development. the second, i know that will give you a lot talk about, the second is the fact that, i respect you, robert, and i do not want it to seem like i am attacking you. you said something space at the characterization -- characterization of china was name-calling, which i cannot support that that is the case.

we were talking about human rights violations. of course, china would like to forget t-square. the fact that china as a country has become so powerful largely of the trade imbalance that exists, between china and do rest of the world, they fund us by sending the money we send them in the trading balance, back to buy our treasury bonds, back to wall street. in thethat kissinger 1990's was on the board of directors at aig. no mice to mention that. a lot of insurance is written from the united states markets in new york to china. the very large financial that have to go on between the communist nation and

ours. guest: the question of whether to call it a communist nation, is this name-calling or is it misleading? i do say it is a one-party state cracking down on its people and it is still totalitarian. when i say it is not communist, there is a specific meaning to communism. it as a way to describe any authoritarian state we disapprove of. which a specific meaning are no longer accurate portrayals of the way the chinese nation and system works. especially economically. they are not practicing communism, primarily a system of collective ownership, fading away fairly fast in china. to say that it is not communist is not to say we do not have to ways.tical for number of

the trade imbalance in chinese trade practices, there are many we do not like that we would like to see changed. the things we dislike about them are not that they are communists per se. it's a question, not of giving china a i think it is really a question of taking our terms properly and not giving china passed by saying it is not communist. watching outside the united states, the number to call is -- (202) 748-8003. we welcome those of you watching online at www.c-span.org or listening on radio heard coast-to-coast from xm. sam is joining us from colorado. good morning. caller: thank you very much.

i have three questions. i am one of those who believes that the forming economic interdependence between countries is in the wrong term, the right approach whether we agree about their lifestyle or they agree about our lifestyle. that buys time to solve problems. three quick questions. host: how about if we take them one at a time. focus: i saw obama's shift about 18 months ago, two years ago, to where he said this south east asia is extremely important and has been neglected. i'm not sure exactly what triggered that. would you shed light on that. host: we will follow up. robert daly? guest: you were referring to the pivot and then the rebounds to asia, and there have been some problems in the packaging of the description. andwhat president obama

initially hillary clinton and now kerry are focusing on that east asia is the most dynamic, populated and rapidly changing part of the world now. and it is that american interest we concentrated there and need to shift our diplomatic efforts and soft power efforts and also our military emphases to the asian region. the goal is to go, on the from a balance of 50-50 in the eastern hemisphere to 60% of our assets and the east and 40% of our assets in the west because this is where interestd states' lies. you asked what triggered that -- first, it was not the case that they ever left the region. certainly, president bush was very cognizant of the importance of east asia and had not neglected it, but i think it

needed to be emphasized even more strongly because of our interest and also because of prior to the announcement of the pivotal rebounds, china had been asserting its long-standing claims to territory in the andern china sheet -- see south china sea aggressively. it was clearly china's rise and china's more aggressive diplomacy was the primary factor that caused the obama administration to focus on the need to rebalance to east asia. host: your second point? caller: china seems to have a very long view, they have one party, they do not have hardy is fighting each other over the approach. they seem to take the 1000 year view that maybe kissinger would describe as where we all must take the quarterly view and we have the infighting that we do in politics. does that put us at a disadvantage right out of the chute in dealing with a problem i china? both systems have

advantages and disadvantages. it is true that in china because there is only one party -- in fact, the parties -- it is not that their parties do not fight each other, it is that there are no other meaningful parties. it is just the communist party and it does not tolerate any challenges to its authority. because of that, yes, they are to give the appearance of consensus. they do engage in long-term planning. we are expecting the 13th, five-year plan now. thesecretary of general of communist party in china has articulated long-term goals for economic development and is filling in the details of how they're going to get there. it is not just that they are unopposed by other parties. of course, they also do not have a free press that can criticize these plans nor is there an independent judiciary that make act as a check on those. yes, that can mean that a party

that is unopposed and that forms laws and policies in that way can be more efficient in some cases whereas we had deliberately consulted and participatory inefficient system. of course, there have been folks in the united states in 2008 who wondered that system is still of aate to face challenges global world. at the same time, china can be deficient and plan on the line -- the long because they do not have opposition parties or a free person or independent judiciary. they do not get feedback from the society about the true state of affairs in the country and what the real statistics are. they do not get the right kind of feedback of on how policies are implemented and they do not get the diversity of view. especially under the president, who was arrested about 100,000 members of the communist party in this anticorruption campaign and who is increasing looking at the my way or the highway kind of guy. people in china, not only policy circles, but in universities,

media, think tanks, are hesitant to speak up about their views. it is hesitancy that we have not seen since after 1989 and the movement. despite the efficiency of long-term planning, there is often a problem with information. diversity of views that would help them form better policies, so do not lose hope yet. both of these systems have their advantages and i would bet on diversity of inputs in the long-term. the: tim promised he had points. quickly, your final question or comment. caller: steve, thank you for the time. the third question, i do not see china -- china is a strong military power, and i do not see them -- i see them engaging in economicallystly engaging in nicaragua and i do not see them exercise that military might in all the bottles likely to -- and all the battles like we do. is it, suck we fight the battles

and they kind of cleanup on the periphery on the economic arrangements? maybe you've got a thought and steve, thank you. host: thank you, tim. very goods is a question and influx, something to keep an i on. you are right that there has been a long-standing -- including from the united states and the administration. china does not provide enough public goods, that the united polices -- china imports most of the oil, gets the benefit of that, the get the contracts in the oilfield with iraq and other nations, but we thed the money to guard ceilings. china has been criticized by president obama, among others, as a free rider. at the same time, what china does try to assert leadership or aggression, depending on your point of view, when it went to provide more public goods, if it wanted to use its growing blue

water navy to play a larger role, then it finds itself accused of being aggressive, so china feels like it is damned if it does end damned if it does not. it is somewhat torn in protecting and selling of the goods, which china is interested in doing. they sent a lot of medical pagennel and to africa and -- and played a major role in battling piracy and have conducted missions in the mediterranean. the escorted some of the russian ships that brought chemical weapons away from syria, for example. they have a growing role which is sometimes welcomed and sometimes condemned. you mentioned investments in africa and nicaragua and that you have not see more military involvement yet. their involvement grows as the capabilities grow. their military evacuated a number of chinese civilians from eurosand work seen-esque

for doing this. it's missions are expanding. host: dave is, michigan. republican line. good morning. caller: hello? host: good morning, dave. caller: yes, i would just like to put a slant on this chinese iade in that it seems that -- am 70 years old, and while i was a young boy, america was manufacturing everything but the kitchen sink. we were making our own clothes, shoes, and everything was of quality. since we have lost all of these to china, to mexico, to japan, with the exception of the automobile, it has been at the but poor quality in the goods. the pants do not fit, the washing machines and the dryers only last 1/10 of as long as an american washing machine or dryer. everything is poorer quality. -- i do not understand

how you sit there and talk about how this is possibly even good. donald trump has it right. they are making full of us. -- fools of us. they're making fools of obama, all of our politicians. china, japan, mexico. toyota was outselling all the american automobiles hand over fist because they could make them cheaper, they send them over here, they sell cars of good quality and everybody is is theo buy it, but what american manufacturer going to do when he has to sell this product at a given rate and it does not compete with the toyota that can come over here and cut rate prices? dave, thank you for the call and comments. we will get a response. guest: dave, you touched on a number of issues. in terms of quality of experts, this is something china is concerned about and this certainly wouldn't alleviate any

of your concerns, if anything, it might exacerbate them, but china is aware and very eager to move up the value change and to export higher-quality product. indeed, it wants to become a leader in the economy. bein, i realize that may not comfort for you. also, as you suggest, it is not just china. we look at the trade imbalance with china. all there has been numerous cases of factories moving overseas where it is possible to say, yes, these americans lost these jobs to china, in fact, these trends begun long before china's rise and a lot of the manufacturing that has gone to china went to china from third countries to which america has lost jobs even earlier. so the issue is not just globalization. we are trying to address this. we spoke earlier about the transpacific partnership, the ptt, which hopes to establish trade, including export of american automobiles and agricultural products to japan, so tpp is in part an

effort to address these issues, but it is not just globalization. it is also optimization that will keep a lot of these jobs from coming back because when the product, the american high-quality products, you describe, where being manufactured and though by individual american assembly lines that were staffed by -- being built by robots. a lot of these jobs are not coming back because of not just china but automation. this poses problems not only for the united states but other nations as well. host: we welcome our guests on c-span radio as well. we are talking about china relations. this is an interesting question on our twitter page. to americans own land in china? does the chinese government allow americans to buy land in its borders?

guest: the answer is, no. only the chinese government can own land. we can lease land like chinese, but even individual chinese cannot homeland and that is because of the feeling that china feels it was exploded and encouraged -- exploited and encroached upon of their sovereignty and patriotism and only the chinese government owns chinese land. host: let's go to -- is it carlana? in my pronouncing a properly? caller: yes, that is right. what i would like to do is point that when the and went to china, one of his arguments was that he was opening up a new market to sell american-made roots. since then, kissinger has been one of the main people and his associates making hundreds of millions of dollars assisting american companies to move into china. really, kissinger is one of the main people that we can blame for the poor quality of the goods we are getting and for the fact that americans do not have

jobs. secondly, by the fact that the chinese are manufacturing so many goods, they do not have to use military power against the united states. all they have to do is refuse to export batteries and light bulbs and a few other items that would bring us to our knees if we could not get. secondly, with all the electronic equipment that we buy, they can easily have chips in them which could be made to explode or catch on fire if we ever did find ourselves in a real warlike situation with china. i am not against the chinese at all, but these are the facts. kissinger's certainly one of the main people to blame for these problems and these threats to our security. of america'sis one fastest-growing export markets. we do have a trade imbalance, but we are exporting evermore to china. yes, there is a trade imbalance, but the story, as always in china, is more complicated than

that. and that china could cut off exports and bring the united states to its knees. if china cut off exports to the united states, china would fall to its knees and fall to its face. china's economy depends on exports to the world's biggest market, the united states. if they cut off those exports, china's factories would close, chinese people would lose their jobs and it would cause tremendous instability within china itself, so this is, as one of the earlier call is characterized, a mutually interdependent relationship. there are many problems with that relationship. i do not mean to make light of them. not the case that china can do stores through that instrument or that it exports to us and that it can bring us to our knees by cutting off exports. they do not have that option and they know it. your third point i think is a good one. i don't think the chips can explode or set on fire, but the chips that come in a number of chinese goods and that the chinese requires american manufacturers like apple to put

into the fold it sells in china and going all over the world, are made to chinese specifications and some case by chinese manufacturers. this is, and should be, cause of concern for americans who are worried about security. if not because the sample can explode in your area, but because our information is not secure. host: when we criticize china for its human rights record, does the chinese government listen? do we make a difference? guest: do we make a difference? yes, i think the record is that intelligently made, regularly made criticisms of human rights are better yet -- or better yet discussions of human rights, as much as the chinese government did dislike them, does it have an impact on china over time? it's not the case that we can ask china to do something and they will do it. in fact, they will do the opposite to show they can, but it was american representation

to a large degree which put the china'san right into vocabulary. we have to do it intelligently, and that means recognizing that despite china's large human rights problem and despite the fact that the problem has gotten worse under the president's leadership, the trajectory from the time that we found relations with china in 19 79 until now, has been positive. the chinese have far more freedom in their daily lives than they did in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. a are far freer to shape their lives, go under seas -- go overseas, study in american universities, spend as they wish, work where they wish, pursue careers of a wish, they are far more free at the personal level and far more physically healthy and internationally engaged than they were. and that is in no small part because of representation of the united states but also because of china's own changes and we have to recognize progress or we

both discredit ourselves if we do not think knowledge that. then i think we also need to a notions ofhat the rights are changing and that the united states, too, and i do not mean to simply go to a moral equivalence here, but has a mixed history with human rights and has only gradually and comes to to violence reconceived human rights. as long as we acknowledge that there has been real progress and as long as it knowledge that we are imperfect and do not simply write the finger and preach but have a discussion, we can talk to the chinese leaders in a way that can make a difference for the chinese people who are still not free, despite the commercial freedom and other individual freedoms. they are not free to challenge of the communist parties, monopoly on political power, or to set the agenda in china socially. that they cannot do and many of them do get rounded up or forppeared for advocating their beliefs. we can make a difference, but it

has to be nuanced, intelligently done. host: very quickly, if he were to write a headline on what is a complex relationship between the u.s. and china, with a story or stories the from the state visit next month -- what would it be, looking ahead? guest: i think the story of xi jinping' is visit, there will probably be an announcement for purchasing of american products, trade commissions, and to show value to the united states by sending a lot of orders. for example, for boeing airplanes. we have seen this before. it is not a big change. i think that the headline is going to be that xi jinping is a powerful leader who wants respect from the united states and to has a long-term vision for china' us role in the world. a more powerful, more influential role in the world that the united states is unsure of how to respond to. with theert daly wilson center and serves as the director

>> on the next washington journal, a look at the coverage of the next presidential campaign with tim graham. for broadband expansion in rural areas. forake your calls and look your comments on washington journal, live every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. the communicators, author and british technology pioneer on the creative process and how it takes work. they were not the first people to have the idea to build a flight to machine, and they were not the first had the idea to fly.

wright brothers the first to succeed? it is not about having an idea in the shower or a lightning bolt of inspiration. it is about solving a problem one step at a time. key for the the brothers who started on their course to end up flying. ashton, monday night on the communicators on c-span two >> there are nearly 10,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan to help train afghanistan's and carry out anti-terror operations. the leader of the mission recently talked about the future of ask -- afghanistan.

this is one hour and 10 minutes. on this warm august day. i'm from the policy program in here with my colleagues on behalf of all including the vice president and the foreign policy we would like to welcome all of you but especially welcome back sherman and general campbell to talk about afghanistan. as you know, the united states remains in afghanistan with about 10,000 uniformed personnel as well as the very brave and dedicated civilians and this is an operation that is nearing roughly its 14th year although it has been renamed. it's an operation that is only 10% of the size that it had been to about 10,000 americans and 4,000 nato troops by way of a couple of points of background we will get to the general campbell but in this particular season i think that you are aware that afghans were doing

most of the fighting and if you want to quantify you are doing 90% and not just the numbers were the troops where they have 30,000 or so of the army and police and nato has 13 or 14,000 but in the casualties. this is the time of the american fatality in afghanistan this year is in the single digits, perhaps for. no one wants to knock on wood but it's in the american role of the world even though it is quite important. as you probably also aware of the are also aware the current plan for president obama is to reduce next spring and perhaps to move towards a very small embassy mission by the end of 2016 although some of the details remain subject for the reconsideration. we are going to proceed for about the next hour. we have until about four t-tango

ten. he's generous with his scheduling and we are lucky to have him in him and very grateful suite of 60 minutes of time. to quickly ask a couple of questions that we will go to all of you for some discussion. general john campbell is a 1971 graduate of west point, the congress from a military family - >> at its continued in subsequent generation as well he's now in his third tour in afghanistan and the first was the kernel. but also the kind of expertise at the senior officer level into the kind of perspective they have across all different levels of command. he was in the regional command east in 2010 and 2011 for the part of afghanistan as you know that suffers the greatest violence along with regional command south and was reminded he earlier.

but in that year and in that sector alone there's been a change again in the u.s. role in the country. he was also the deputy chief of staff in the u.s. army and had a number of other positions including serving in iraq. matt sherman has also been at this for a very long time and i missed the most durable and remarkably gifted and committed to work in the war. he spent a number of years in iraq and a number in afghanistan that was about five years ago and had been a forever war that he's kept at it. i would like to ask you all for joining me to welcome him to brookings. [applause]

thanks everybody for taking the time to be here and showing an interest in afghanistan. we are not in the headlines like we used to be so we would like to take some time to talk about afghanistan and how i see it, and i look forward to your questions. i thought about five to ten minutes of remarks and then lay out the dialogue. i see david back there in the back. there's a seat there is a seat for you right here all the way in the front. i would ask you a question. a long career on this issue and ben came over just a little bit to see us. this is the third tour in afghanistan going on a year )-right-paren. any time i've been there, the treaty forces continue to get better and better. they have challenges and issues they've identified in the past as we have worked on close air support and we work on intelligence and logistics and special operating forces.

but again i see them continuing to progress and be very resilient. mike talked about the mike talked about the number of casualties this year on and it has been a very tough fighting season for all of afghanistan both from a military site and also the number of civilian casualties has gone up as well and i attribute most of those in the 70 plus% i of it is that over 90% in the civilian casualties caused by the taliban and other insurgents out there and we can't forget that sacrifice. i have a very good opportunity to see the afghan security forces from all different levels the leaders from the circulation as they interacted with afghan soldiers in place but today i spent a lot of time working with the ministry and the minister of interior and the president and

the doctor and i'm very honored to have the opportunity and again i think they continue to progress and they have challenges this fighting season has been tough on the casualties out has been talked about but there's a lot of reasons for that and part of it is we don't have 80,000 plus coolish enforcers in the battlefield. they don't have the type of close air support that we've provided in the years past. pakistan has done well in the fighting fighting inside pakistan driving people into afghanistan. and again, they are figuring this out. we are at the core level and we stay involved in the special forces which is probably the best in the region and the afghan special forces. i look forward to taking your questions into talking about afghanistan. it is near and dear to me and has been for a long time. and again i would like to tell

you about them as they go through. i would like to ask about more specifics on the military dynamics and momentum, but before i do talking about this earlier and i would give you the chance to talk about how in your eyes why it is important, why afghanistan is support the db2 important and i know it is complex and sometimes seems in iraq were a note but i know you've thought a lot about it and i wonder if you could share some thoughts. >> i wear two hats. i have the u.s. forces afghanistan and nato and under the nato had a busy train advisory to the system to continue to kind of codify and solidify the gains we had in the last 14 years in the security forces from the u.s. side of the same thing the train can advise and assist. and the same reason we went to afghanistan in the first place in 2001 is to make sure that there will be safe havens the insurgents will plan to hit the homeland. i do feel we have done a great job in the conventional

perspective and the afghan security forces as well to make sure we haven't had another 9/11 and we have to continue to build the capacity in the region. they want to be a regional partner. they now have a president and a ce committed to the committee, committed to the afghan security forces. the president is president is the commander-in-chief and every single day is concerned about the welfare. he visits the training in the security quite well. so for me it really is about the last 14 years that they've made to ensure that we have a stable afghanistan for central asia in that area which i think really cuts down on the opportunities for insurgents to plan something for the homeland. i think anybody that's been to afghanistan understands that there are people out there that continue to want to change our way of life and to do that sometimes we have to play this away game and i think the last

14 years has prevented us from having another 9/11 and we are very blessed to have great men and women that continue to every single day that their lives on the line. we have a sweet spot 13 to 14,000 with nato. we took the casualties and we only had one loss from the u.s. soldier who was a green on blue and we had one defense logistics agency killed and then the contractors working with our folks comes with it is since the first of january but that's not work every single day to mitigate and i'm privileged to lead the men and women to think about afghanistan and be part of something larger. >> for the long-standing leader of the taliban there appears to years ago or so in the taliban

ranks they will talk about that a little later but i wanted to ask about the military trends and dynamics how strong is the taliban right now and how is the fight going, how would you explain what's going on besides the point you've already made that this is a big transition but they are overwhelmingly doing it on their own besides that how else should we think about the trends and battlefield dynamics this year? >> i think again very tough fighting season. i would tell you that it started last year so it's been kind of a continuous fighting season. when we talk in terms of the fighting season it's until october but i think that we have seen from the very last number through the fall we had some political instability and the fighting continued and really afghan security forces started but we called the season on their own they didn't wait for the company in this year. they had a multi-core operation of the february and march timeframe where they took them

in helmond. they took about three or four weeks of planning and proper commanders together. we went back and took that with the senior afghan police and army and it was a very complex plan that they want to take in initiative to find first into the debate. they followed that up with another multi-cooperation. then we had about a month and a half where we had a little bit of a wall and that was caused by the insurgents in afghanistan going up to the north. we haven't seen this kind and not great levels but it just takes a few in the district center. you have the people that call out to the central government. we need some help and it causes them to start moving some of their people up to the north are probably the three large areas, so