the problem in afghanistan contrary to what people believe, is that you can't contrast afghanistan. afghanistan has been conquered many times. the problem is of doing it and controlling it, which it really has been. i think that ago probably back to the persian cyrus to find anyone who has controlled afghanistan. one of the reasons for that is there's a desperate groups living spreadout and it's very difficult to control this type of collection of different people. now, of course, we're only going to try to hundred 40000 afghans, instead of the 400,000 that mcchrystal proposed. and the more u.s. troops that we put in there, the less incentive the afghans had to train forces themselves. now it's not clear to me what stabilizing urban areas will do for the fight against al qaeda, since any training camp would probably be in the taliban controlled country side anyway. you don't usually put a big training camp in the middle of downtown somewhere. now i've painted an awful portrait of afghanistan and predicted that iraq will again corrupt into civil strife when the u.s. begins to pull a.

afghanistan 2010 is not afghanistan 1980. we are not the soviet union, and we do not face a national upricing, like the soviet union faced. when we fought against the soviets in afghanistan, we had the benefit that virtually the entire afghan population was sympathetic to us. uzbeks, pashtuns. the taliban insurgency as aexpires to be that, but is in fact a pashtun community. the good news for us, the majority of afghans are not pashtuns. and even a majority of pashtuns do not want to see a return to the medieval hell that mullah omar created in the second half of the 1990's. smart policies can still reverse the momentum here. just a word about pakistan. pakistan is in the midst of an extraordinarily difficult transition, from military dictatorship to democracy. we should support this transition enthusiastically, but we should recognize this is pakistan's fourth attempt at doing so. you have to believe in the triumph of hope over expectation, to expect pakistan will get there, but it is in hour interest to encourage them to do

for afghanistan. and to that particular point, as we're looking at more hopefully of ngo's delivering programs and working with the of afghans, building within the afghan community, i'd like to mention, there was an interesting "washington post" op-ed piece back in mid november, glen hubbard, the dean of columbia's business school, was reflecting on the funding for pakistan and i assume it has the same thing to do also with pakistan, in terms of models of delivery of programs to support successful economic development. and he harkened back to the successful model of the marshal plan, not suggesting to do a marshal plan per se, but rather to look at the model of how things could be altered and delivered for truly sustainable economic development. how are your plans moving and are they moving in that direction? >> you know what? on my trips to pakistan, i always tried to meet a society and the crit s. of the way we gave fine assistance in pakistan was really harsh. i am particularly in your field, educa

afghanistan 2010 is not afghanistan 1980. one we fought against the soviets in afghanistan, we had the benefit that the entire afghan population was a myth that it to us. the taliban insurgency aspires to be that but is in fact a [unintelligible] it has very little support of the printing. [unintelligible] even a majority of posh tunes do not want to seek their return to the bell. smart policies can still reverse the momentum here. just a word about pakistan. pakistan is in the middle of an extraordinarily difficult transition from military dictatorship to democracy. we should support this transition enthusiastically. we should recognize this is pakistan's fourth attempt at doing so. you have to believe in the triumph of hope over expectations to expect that sam will get there. it is our interest to encourage them to do so. the pakistani military establishment over the years has proven incapable of running the country and has developed extensive, and cement ties with the syndicate of terror that a talked about that runs along

afghanistan 2010 is not afghanistan 1980. not the soviet union, and we do not face a national upricing, like the soviet union faced. when we fought against the soviets in afghanistan, we had the benefit that virtually the entire afghan population was sympathetic to us. uzbeks, pashtuns. the taliban insurgency as aexpires to be that, but is in fact a pashtun community. the good news for us, the majority of afghans are not pashtuns. and even a majority of pashtuns do not want to see a return to the medieval hell that mullah omar created in the second half of the 1990's. smart policies can still reverse the momentum here. just a word about pakistan. pakistan is in the midst of an extraordinarily difficult transition, from military dictatorship to democracy. we should support this transition enthusiastically, but we should recognize this is pakistan's fourth attempt at doing so. you have to believe in the triumph of hope over expectation, to expect pakistan will get there, but it is in hour interest to encourage them to do so, be

in afghanistan. there will be more tough times ahead. all of our forces have made great sacrifices, hundreds of lives have been a lost. thousands of casualties have been sustained. in the last year, britain alone has suffered over 100 fatalities. each of the countries represented here today recognizes that this mission is of vital for our national securities. it is vital to the stability of this crucial region. it is vital to the security of our world. we have a clear strategy. we set out last autumn. we are making progress. a military search is turning the tide against the taliban-led insurgency. it is at the same time delivering the capacity of the afghan forces that are fighting alongside of us. a civilian surge is insuring that its military forces clear areas of taliban, our stabilization teams go in immediately to work with local leaders to hold the ground that has been gained. britain is proud that we lead the largest military joint civilian team in afghanistan. during 2009, we doubled the numb

sues soviet presence in afghanistan. -- afghanistan to soviet presence in afghanistan. i was born in india. they built roads, schools, colleges, and sent indians to britain for education. >> what is the question? >> my question is are we not doing the same thing? believing their own presence, i have been to pakistan twice since last three years. we fought in the 1980's -- >> thank you. are we making the same mistakes as the soviets or rise in iraq? the difference between the soviet occupation and american and the other countries involved in the effort in afghanistan is like night and day. a missing it is important to remember one-and-a-half% were killed. it was the largest refugee population in history. it was also the most heavily- -- mined country in the world. the answer to are they similar, i say the answer is great interest to policy makers and everyone else in the country. the about the iraq surge, which i personally oppose along with probably everybody else on this panel was doubling down on the fact that part of why i oppose this is what was going on in iraq. it

afghanistan in 2010 is not afghanistan 1980. we are not the soviet union. and we do not face a national uprising like the soviet union faced. when we fought against the soviets in afghanistan, we have the benefit that virtually the entire afghan population was sympathetic to us. the uzbeks, tadzhiks, cazares, pashtun spaghetts. the good news for us, though a majority of afghans are not pashtun. and even a majority of pashtun says do not want to see a return to the medieval held that was created in the second half of the 1990's. smart policies can still reversed the momentum here. just a word about pakistan -- pakistan is in the midst of an extraordinarily difficult transition from military dictatorship to democracy. we should support this transition enthusiastically, but we should recognize this is pakistan's fourth attempt at doing so. you have to believe in the triumph of hope over expectation to expect pakistan will get there, but it is in our interest to encourage them to do so. because the pakistani military establishment over the years has proven inca

civilians in afghanistan. to what extent are they able to get out of their compounds and meet with afghans and going to villages and with made to protect them? is it the u.s. military or is it private contractors and to what extent is security in beating any of these efforts? >> that is a real issue. there is no denying it and is any of you who led been out there understand it. first of all civilian serving out there are extraordinarily brave and because they are not in the same secure environment as our military colleagues and you saw tragical though a unique example of that with their cia colleagues in cost in the last few days. secondly, they have to get out to do their work. they have to get outside of the why are comment when you go down to a place like shellmont and see someone like rory kelton, who has been there three years, who knows the area, and aid worker knows the area up better than any of the american military and is committed in takes enormous risks, you see that. now what we doing specifically

in afghanistan. did bin laden set that attack? if al qaeda's on the run, why do they seem on the attack? and finally, command and control. has barack obama been too much the candidate and not enough the executive? has he shown real control of the government bureaucracy? in fighting this war? i'm chris matthews. welcome to the show. elisabeth bumiller covers the pentagon for "the new york times." joe kleine is a time magazine columnist. andrea mitchell is chief foreign affairs correspondent at nbc news. and david ignatius is a "washington post" columnist. first up, president obama reminded the country this week that enemies of america are still very much a threat. >> we are at war. we are at war against al qaeda. a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9-11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. chris: today we examine that threat with these four reporters who cover national security. we'll look at how al qaeda threatens us abroad

how much money is accrued to the insurgents in afghanistan and around afghanistan. and also of course, how much goes into the pocket of organized crime world war. above all what the report does is links the dots together and we see the health situation, the crime situation and the organized insurgency's operation all together. this is very new. >> so in terms of the figures, some $400 million a year going to the taliban? >> yes. this is an estimate which has been produced some time ago which is confirmed in this report, at least regarding the amount of money which is being used by the taliban thanks to their role in the cultivation but especially in the processing in the labs and in the exports. >> i want to explore that with you. before people thought they were just getting a take, small take, off the top. but now you're saying that it is much, much more involved than that? >> well, we should compare for example the taliban period now when they are insurgents not in control of the country but in control of parts of the current, to the period when they were a power,

in afghanistan. and probably surprising to the american public but most of the elders actual lay appreciate the fact -- actually appreciate the fact that we're there. on the other hand they're very keenly aware that the military is not just there for firepower but it was something i call brain power and i think that's one of the things that the american public should be more aware of. of the 8 of the 22 now thousand troops deployed this year they're trainer troops. these are reservists and national guard. they're veterinarians they're horticulturalists or engine ghers -- engineers or civil engineers and i think 34,000 troops that were -- 30,000. so about a third of those troops are again trainer troops and the people in afghanistan they can differenceuate and they -- differentiate. they say what we really need is not only the protection but we want the training and that also is, there are good things happening in afghanistan. there's 80,000 troops now trained. the goal is 180,000. there's a central b

the debate about afghanistan, the intense debate about afghanistan, the centrality of that, which isot in doubt, but that somehow attracted from, at least the political bird's-eye -- that somehow detracted from at least the political bird's eye view. i think to a certain extent it is a wake-up call for the political establishment and perhaps all of us that we need to be watching the adaptations, we have to watch what is happening in yemen, what is happening in somalia, north africa. these are real problems. it is not just afghanistan. it is sobering, it is unfortunate, but it is the reality we live in. host: next juan call next zarate, -- next call for juan zarate, jacksonville, florida, a democrat. caller: i have a question concerning the way we are put under scrutiny, for lack of a better word, when we go to board our flights here in america. now, so much time is spent on, it seems, getting a group of names on a list who cannot fly. why isn't there a list done for people who can fly? with our database at today's technology, it takes no time to compile a list of people who are citiz

today was a good day for afghanistan. we renewed our common commitment as compaq for afghanistan. we are ready to take more responsibility in three years for the critical provinces. we need to take leadership for the whole afghanistan. thank you very much. that was a great opportunity. >> thank you. >> let me say that i believe this conference has for the first time set out a clear agenda with clear priorities. the development shut agee was a broad agenda. we have a much more strategic approach. this is on the security side and the civilian side. we believe we have a more clear comprehensive strategy then we had before. let me say that this is the first time that the question of reconciliation, reintegration, has played such a role at any international conference and we have strong support from the international community. that is important to me. as i've said, we have committed to a transition strategy which means that we in the international community must be give more responsibility to the government and the people and to the people. -- the government and the people. we have se

haiti is no iraq or afghanistan. american troops are unlikely to be required once the immediate emergency passes. i think the united nations should be able to secure haiti successfully with modest reinforcements that have already been authorized. i do think the united states should consider increasing the assignment of american police officers to the un police contingent there. we have a unique attribute to draw on, which is a number of haitian american police of a surge in big cities like miami and -- police officers in big cities like miami and new york and elsewhere i think can provide valuable contribution to the u.n. police force helping to secure haiti. the second lesson drawn from these operations is the stabilization and reconstruction operations take time. the 1994 american-led intervention was the case in point. that operation was almost entirely successful in its own terms, but those were much too narrow. in launching the intervention, president clinton promised to restore the freely elected president and

from here and iraq and afghanistan. would you put up your hand if you are a veteran of iraq or afghanistan? keep those hands up. put up your hand if you are a veteran of vietnam or else all door. thank you all very much for your service. [applause] put up your hand if you have been a troop advisor anywhere. keep the intern's honest. i agree with 90% of what mark said. i will focus on the 10% with which i don't agree with you are free to interrupt as we go along. leadership is necessary in counterinsurgency. i agree leadership is even more necessary in counterinsurgency. i saw this in iraq. the greatest achievement of general david petraeus is not. that was passed over by the french and british. what the achievement was was pushing it down through many special commands through this sort of thing like a battlefield circulation, going out and talking. they both spent an entire day's sitting and talking, skipping the core done to battalion -- i ran into two leaders quoting general david petraeus's letters to the troops. at

in the case of afghanistan, we're trying to support a policy for afghanistan first.wherever we can purchase products from the people of afghanistan, and from the private enterprise, we will do this. we have contributed 10% of the assistance programs directly and we expect to double this in the coming year. we are trying to achieve the right balance between whatçó weo in the east and the south, with the instability is, with what is happening in the north and the west. the percentage of the total -- this will get larger for the east and the south, if you can follow this. in the field will be pushing deeper and faster, and more flexible in how we deliver these systems to the local levels. finally, the oversight monitoring. we take the responsibility of this money very seriously, even though this is in a highly- dangerous area. we have lost the lives of civilians, some were killed and others were badly injured. as we have carried out these programs, many of these are by a very courageous partners, and we could not do this job without them. but we will continue to press s

these plans to bring natural gas across afghanistan would be good if afghanistan were secure.tence. if it can be so, that would be a good thing. i am very sure that we did not have bin laden and let him go. i am certain that is the case. yes, we did shift our focus to iraq, and that was probably a mistake. however, it was not one that we would have let bin laden go. i cannot agree that was the case. host: to florida, republican column, dale, good morning. caller: i just have a couple of caller: i just have a couple of statements to make and i wil

i am optimistic about the long- term, you know, opportunities for afghanistan and the people of afghanistan. they're going to get there. they just need our continued support. >> just quickly, marvin, under question of a census. there was an opportunity lost. the levels of a security make conducting an accurate sense is very difficult today. back in 2002 or 2003, they were cast with running a census. it no longer exists. they did not get the funding or the impetus to conduct that. afghanistan poses population is branching from 24 million people, a wide range. we don't know if any level of precision how many districts in the country, let alone how many people are living in the districts. it is something that gets highlighted this year when they will be district elections. let me turn a over to one question here, and we will go to the side. can you please come to the microphone and introduce yourself? >> thanks. my question returns to the title of the panel. i think that i am hearing, and i just want to make sure to give you the opportunity to confirm that this is correct, that rather than mak

a lot about the afghanistan elections. to my left is a grant kippen. he was the chairman of the ecc both in 2005 and this past year in 2009. but scott and grant were at the center of this maelstrom last year, so please be quite pointed with your questions and try to get information on what was happening behind the scenes. these guys were really at the center of what was going on and what was paid -- and extremely difficult period in afghanistan. scott, if you want to start. >> we will switch the order. >> grant, take it away. >> thank you very much. i thought -- scott and i had a little discussion last night about how we would go forward with this discussion this morning. i what i would like to do is lead off with a little bit of an introduction to the ecc. as many of you know, of the two electoral bodies in afghanistan , the ecc is a temporary body and it is only in existence for the period of the election campaign. it will cease to exist up to 30 days after the certification of final results. the final certified results

for afghanistan. and to that particular point, as we're looking at more hopefully of ngo's delivering programs and working with the of afghans, building within the afghan community, i'd like to mention, there was an interesting "washington post" op-ed piece back in mid november, glen hubbard, the dean of columbia's business school, was reflecting on the funding for pakistan and i assume it has the same thing to do also with pakistan, in terms of models of delivery of programs to support successful economic development. and he harkened back to the successful model of the marshal plan, not suggesting to do a marshal plan per se, but rather to look at the model of how things could be altered and delivered for truly sustainable economic development. how are your plans moving and are they moving in that direction? >> you know what? on my trips to pakistan, i always tried to meet a society and the crit s. of the way we gave fine assistance in pakistan was really harsh. i am particularly in your field, educa

afghanistan, we're not dealing with... to revolutionize the states in afghanistan.e are building the state institutions in afghanistan with the limited constraint... with the constraint that we face as far as shortage of capital, limited enforcement capability against undesirable elements so that all of that will be part of the equation that we'll be dealing with in afghanistan for many years to come. >> warner: the president is... president karzai is going to this london-afghanistan conference at the end of this month. the international donors of troops and money were hoping that he would come with a new team with plans and, in fact, progress already underway in making this a more competent and effective government. what are they going to see now? >> afghan people parliament of afghanistan is serious about seeing reform being implemented in afghanistan. i think this is the kind of message that they would like to here. >> warner: mr. ambassador, thank you. >> thank you. my pleasure. >> ifill: next, a remarkable dancer, and the remarkable company she helped build. je

while we are learning and drawing lessons from iraq and afghanistan everyday. we have taken a broader view and looked at how conflict may be in the 21st century. you are seeing some of that in iraq and afghanistan. we looked at lebanon in the summer of 2006. you had a terrorist organization operating inside one state supported by two other states fighting another state. >> with sophisticated weapons. >> exactly right. they had state of the art surface to air missiles. guided missiles. they had crews missiles. they had secure cell phones and computers and they got their message out on local television. that's a hybrid threat that is much more complex and difficult to deal with than the 8th guard tank army that i grew up. >> what does that mean in terms of how you are trained to equip and what are the kind of dangers that you need to be able to combat that. >> exactly. and back in february of 2008 we published our first doctrine, a major revision of our doctrine since 2001. in that, we spelled out the main operational concept that no matter where we fight across

i understand why we're in afghanistan. why in this part of afghanistan? is this really counterinsurgency you guys are doing up there or are you simply sticking your fist into a hornet's nest? >> let's delve into that. the argument would be made if we were not to be there, if we were to say, seed these areas which are sparsely populated, there are very few people. the argument is the taliban will assert control there, potentially al qaeda or other terrorist groups could set up traini ining camps and things l that. what's wrong with that argument? >> there's nothing wrong with it. that's probably what would happen. i think what you're seeing is general mcchrystal considering, given the limited number of troops i'm going to have, what's the best use of them? one use might be, okay, let's pull back from those areas and focus on an ink spot classic counterinsurgency approach. kabul, khost, and kandahar. put your troops, put your resources there and do classic counterinsurgency there -- >> provide security for the people there and that is the vast bulk of the p

centers in afghanistan.ew all the tensions. this will be facilitated during the coming months. third, development is at the top of our action plan. we need to strengthen the leadership management and oversight capabilities of our civil service and our democratic institutions. we should streamline and rationalize our rules to regulations and procedures so that the government can work smoothly, free of corruption. afghanistan requires the consolidation of good governments across districts, municipalities, provinces. there is no constitutional impediment to the dallas -- to the delegation of decision making to lower level -- however, creating structures and bypassing the centers will have perverse implications. reviving and strengthening our traditional institutions of cooperation and resolution at the local levels can go a long way in improving people's lives. strengthening our traditional will promote help the communities, engaging our elders at all societal levels. empowerment of local council makes the deve

the oil in afghanistan.hey came back that hossein was one of the biggest ones to come into power at this time. and they did all of us try to get a hold of the oil. the united states people need to stop and think, yes, this was about oil, to keep it out of hands of these countries that wanted to get that oil. they need to be thankful to george bush that he had the guts and the sense to get rid of hosseihussein and his murderers. the iraqis can live today in peace without these murderers. guest: i would just say this, lee, that is going to war in a country is the intent of the president, you put that before the american people and have that discussion. but you do not tell them that they have weapons of mass destruction that they are going to use next week or that they were behind 9/11 to do it. host: an e-mail from new jersey. guest: he is our right. once we reach that sort of tipping point, of the longer we stay, but more people die. you have to have the political courage to come out when there is no way to w

it is our target in afghanistan.hose numbers. it is not just our own american offices, we will be hiring a lot more afghan staff that will be directly working with usaid. these are a lot of our professional brains

i understand why we are in afghanistan. why in this part of afghanistan?s this really counter insurgency you are doing up there? are you simply sticking your fist into a hornet's nest? >> let's delve into that. the argument would be made if we were not to be here, if we were to say -- sparsely populated, very few people, the argument is the taliban will assert control there and potentially al qaeda or the terrorist groups could set up training camps and things like that. what's wrong with that argument? >> there's nothing wrong with that. that's probably what would happen. i think what you are see sing general mcchrystal considering given the limited number of troops i'm going to have, what's the best use of them? one use might be okay, let's pull back from those areas and focus on an ink spot classic counterinsurgency approach. the area southeast of kabul and kandahar. put your troops, put your resources there and do classic counterinsurgency there. >> provide security for the people there and that's the vast bulk of the population? >> exactly. >> and the

, and the people in afghanistan did not bother us. provide haven for the very people who do attack the pakistani government prepares cooperation and support between them. it is not just that their forces inside of north waziristan which crossed the border and attacked us and our coalition partners and the afghans, but that is a threat to the pakistani sovereignty which one day they will wake up to. but they have got to do it. we cannot buy it or force it. we can try to be persuasive but we cannot force them to do something that they do not want to do for themselves. yes. >> you have any concerns about chairman bernanke's nomination? >> my concern is -- first of all, i think he has done a lot of positive and important things toward stopping the direction that this economy was heading. i think we have been able to avoid the worst calamity in significant measure because of his leadership. on the other hand, i do not think he was very forceful in taking steps against some of these financial transactions that got us into this problem to be

troops in afghanistan. even more than the pay increase, which was announced for afghan troops, general caldwell said that setting that date by president obama made clear to the afghan government and to the afghan people that president obama means business when he says that our presence in afghanistan is not an open-ended commitment. afghan leaders became focused on manning for the shift in principal responsibility from coalition forces to their forces. it is highlighted by that july, 2012 -- 2011 date, and they took urgent steps to increase recruitment for the afghan army. while it is too early to determine if the surge in u.s. combat forces will have the effect that president obama and general mcchrystal intend, it is not too early, in other words, to see a positive effect towards accomplishing the mission of strengthening and training the afghan army. a key to the success of that mission will be partnering with the afghan security forces in regional commands south, in the kandahar area which we visited, c

leaders in afghanistan.u are saying, what do you want t/ say and how can we get this message Ãacross. that's the conference in london, to bring the afghan women to london to speak directly to their culture and government and the future as a country. we very much focus on not going there and me saying, ok, i am a white woman here from canada, for example, let's talk about what your country should look like. absolutely not. it is who are leaders in your community and what do you want to say.ñ host: let's hear from chaz. caller: hi, first time caller. i remember certain culture norms that we devastated and heavilily so. y -- happily so. slavery and women's voting. what is behind these question when people are concerned about the religious right. afghan or iraqi. but don't give a hoot about their political rights. so really i asked everyone who is concerned about the cultural norms of other people and exploit people like yourselves, and myself. what is really behind your question? because my particular backgroun

india doesn't have a common border with afghanistan. i'm talking about just the countries who have direct borders next to them. >> trudy. >> trudy reuben, the "philadelphia inquirer". mr. ambassador, when the s.w.a.t. fighting was going on, initially there was some talk of chinook diplomacy, western diplomacy as with the earthquake in 2005 which was so successful in changing pakistani ideas. the pakistani early rejected that. d army rejected that. i was recently in s.w.a.t., and although the pakistani army -- swat, the civilian government is doing nothing so far. the army is hard-pressed and doesn't know how to cooperate with the public. so my question is how do we effectively use the aid we put into swat was mainly humanitarian where we took the lead. how do we take all of this new civilian aid and make it effective, especially when there is such paranoia can in pakistan that the idea of new a id officials come anything to oversee this new aid has been billed as an invasion of blackwater in the papers? >> gee, thanks, trudy. that was r

nowhere is that more the case than in afghanistan. the duran line so called john at the end of the 19th century was deliberately intended to divide the pashtun population of that area. that presented security challenges then just as the present security challenges now. so this was a line drawn not to unify groups but actually to divide them. and that means that line has been highly porous ever since its inception. on the pakistani side of the line or the family at the minister the tribal areas. they are separate from the rest of pakistan because no central authority has a ever been able to control them, not the pakistani government today, not the british rush for the decades of their ascendancy of their. so, there is a huge challenge that comes in part from the way the kuran line was strong for pashtu and again while they are the largest of pakistan's's ethnic groups there are in fact more pashtuns in pakistan and afghanistan. so again, a major, major challenge for the government of both afghanistan and pakistan. and for the united st

. >> the mission in afghanistan is undeniably difficult. and successful requires steadfast commitment. and insecures significant cost. >> we all stand shoulder to shoulder in the belief that healthcare reform is necessary and timely. >> american families and small business are still struggling as the white house response continues to fall short. >> bret: we'll reflect back on the biggest stories of 2009 with our all-star panel tonight. and look ahead to the new year. "special report" starts right now. >> happy new year. tonight we'll discuss some of the top headlines of 2009. including in-depth analysis of our top four stories of the year. afghanistan, healthcare reform, the economy, and, of course, president barack obama's first year in office. that is where our special begins. >> i barack obama will solemnly swear -- >> that i will execute the office of the president of the united states faithfully. >> that i will execuexecute -- >> faithfully execute -- execute the office faithfully. >> preserve, protect and defend the constitution of th

it will be based really on how comes out for afghanistan.eaceful relationship there will do a lot to strategical sheftel the organizations provide their national security. i see the shift, not as visibly as some -- not for trade visibly in the media, but i have seen it internally. it will take time. we are all very impatient. >> one final question before we close this part of the program -- we have spoken quite a bit about connecticut operations. there's another part of the overall pie contest to do with counter in the ideologies of radical streamers' some -- radical extremism. the military is often innovative in so many areas. is this part of your mission? what ways are you engaged, and is the military encountering in theology? >> it is a key piece. -- >> in countering that ideologies? >> there is a global peace to this that is not kinetic. essentially the population throughout the globe figures out a way to say this is enough and we will not to allow it. not unlike an insurgency there will be hard core extremists who will only respond eith

. >> let us turn our attention to afghanistan. do you have faith in president karzai that he will be able to turn sentiment around with troops on the ground there? >> i did not before. he is the president, you can argue about the election all day long. but he is the president. i want to see how the ax and reacts and works with us. getting rid of the unsavory people that have gotten into that government -- i hope he comes across -- there has been an awful lot in the way of trying to get to that country and non-haven for terrorists. it would help all of athens -- afghans. >> this spring will be the time when congress will debate afghanistan. in principle, president obama is expected to ask for as much as $33 billion more to pay for the surge in afghanistan. i was wondering whether you see it as possible for a lot of the democrats' -- potentially a supplemental, depending on what form the $33 billion would take. do you see any way that this may fail? >> i think a lot depends on how the situation is coming along in afghanistan. i thin

and then along came what we have in iraq and afghanistan. we certainly wish we had some of those folks back. i wish there was some way to keep a substantial non-seeswaing type -- non-seeswaing type of military in times of peace. when those conflicts to come to pass, they would be all the more ready for them. guest: can we ask you about don't ask, don't tell? what do think should be done about that? guest: i am personally not for changing the law. however, there will be hearings in the subcommittee, the personnel subcommittee the sheis year. that is all i can tell you right now. guest: why do not want to change it? guest: we are in the midst of two major conflicts, and i think a disruption of this type could very well cause some serious problems. wait until the hearings. let's see what the hearings unfold. guest: are you open to change, or are you pretty fixed? when they tried to do it in the clinton administration, you were opposed then, too. guest: i was involved with the statute that is now written. guest: involved is an understatement, si

deaths in afghanistan this year. >>> the american troops in afghanistan are hoping to win over the hearts minds of people. and to do that, a first of its kind u.s. marine mission is now forging unprecedented lengths with afghan women. mandy clark reports. >> i want her on her head. she does not have a weapon. >> reporter: meet this captain training the all female marine team. their mission, reaching out to the women of afghanistan. >> we're the first ever that's actually been allowed to pass into that population. the cull schur pretty sensitive about men talking to their women. >> reporter: even their interpreters are women. the marines wear head scarves as a sign of respect. their efforts have been rewarded. afghan women have proved to be good intelligence sources, providing tips on weapons caches and hidden bombs. they're also more open to the military's humanitarian side which helps stabilize the region with programs that promote health, hygiene and education. >> i think the best tool that i can ever approach them with is ears. to listen to what they have to say. >> reporter: these are

he took questions on afghanistan and the economy. this is about an hour and ten minutes. >> good morning. i want to bring you up first of all to date with the events that are happening this week. these are important days and this afternoon i will be visiting the islands and as events unfold this week i believe will be a critical week of decisions for northern ireland. and on thursday the world comes together in london to unite against the global terrorist threat. our conference on afghanistan, the london conference will be attended by president karzai the u.n. secretary general vana and 60 nations will be represented. we will be announcing new figures for nato forces and for afghan forces in the time to come. and we will be focusing on how the political and civilian surge that we plan in afghanistan can match and complement the military service that is taking place. on wednesday, the day before the first international meeting will be held to agree how we can strengthen support for yemen in its efforts against al qaeda and how we can

will we see some change in afghanistan?> there's no question that 30,000 more troops are going to make life miserable for the taliban but that's only one part of the strategy here. the other part is that the afghan government has to get its act together, cut down at least some of the... the police have to expand and get a whole lot better so that they can take over the fight. if you believe that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, then those are two very ify propositions. so if you look at the 30,000 troops and everything else that has to be accomplished you would have to say that the success of this strategy is by no means a sure thing. >> schieffer: nancy, is congress going to approve the funds to allow the president to carry out this? >> in the end they probably will. but it won't be the democrats... a majority of democrats who are supporting it. the president will probably get most of his support from republicans. one of his chief supporters is senator john mccain. a lot of democrats were hoping he would start

we can bring our troops home from afghanistan at the point which afghanistan is able to take controlof its country. we cannot do it without an army that is strong. we will be announcing further figures on thursday. we cannot do without a police force free of corruption. it is at about 90,000 at the moment, but it needs to be bigger. i hope we can get a number of countries to play a vital role in the training of forces. >> in conducting investigations into health qualities across the united kingdom, specifically a drug for rheumatoid arthritis. the scottish madison consortium has approved the drug, it has proved across europe and the united states, but in a preliminary report, they say they will not recommend it. so would you look into this personally and see what you can do and what will you do if elected on may 6th, or whenever that might be coming to make sure the quality -- the inequalities in the health system are dressed. >> i appreciate what you're saying. retort -- rheumatoid arthritis is at a bad thing to have and we're looking for the best treatment for a parade when a new d

and abandon afghanistan. it is a problem politically for us with the 2011 date, but it can be overcome. by the same token, our generals understand the chain of command. the work for the secretary of defense and the president of the united states and they understand that. they're following his position with regard to capture enemy combatant spirit as the minority leader said, when asked the question, what do we do with captured enemy combatants, it was clear that the answer is confusion and uncertainty on the part of our troops and the afghan security forces. that is something that will have to be overcome. that said, we can overcome these two major concerns that senator mcconnell outlined. i think there is a feeling among our troops, both at the top level, general mcchrystal and the troops we were able to visit with both in kabul and can leatherneck -- camp leatherneck, we are in a good position to win 2010. i think that will tell the tale, but i do think we have the right approach of clear, hold, and build,

focus on afghanistan could not be limited to just afghanistan. it had to include pakistan. i think i've been to pakistan -- i've been to pakistan one time before i took this job over and i've just made my 14th trip over the last couple of years, to just give you an indication of the need to understand, my view is thed any to understand, the need to be there and try to see challenges through other people's eyes. and not just take the american view, from here in washington or quite frankly in iowa city, iowa, or wherever you might live and to try to understand these problems looking at it from another country's perspective. and a critical country in a critical part of the world. certainly the focus on the broader mideast included the focus on the gulf area, iran, and the challenges that i describe to sort of go from tai run to beirut. it includes south asia. i've learned a lot, i think we all have, very instructive to me, has been this -- the policy debate that we had late last year for almost three months about the strategy for afghanistan and pak

connor powell in kabul, afghanistan. well, the attack is bringing brand new attention to the role that america's spy agency is playing in this dangerous area of the world. the cia undergoing major changes in recent years, agents moving choser to the front lines and playing a more direct role in our military operation as we battle militants not only in afghanistan but across the border in pakistan as well. caroline shively has been looking into that from washington. i understand the cia plays a big role in the unmanned drone program. tell us about that. >> sure, gregg. chapman is reportedly where a lot of the manage for unmanned drone strikes are originated, not the execution, not the launch, that's done elsewhere, but the guys at chapman help figure out how to target in afghanistan and across the border in pakistan. now, this attack on chapman proves how dangerous a mission it is for cia agents there, but it's also incredibly complicated. many analysts say the cia is basically orchestrating the war in pakistan, something

troops in afghanistan. after that, president obama on today's unemployment figures. >> i'm always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequence, unintended consequences of new regulations. new regulations, regulations of any kind, act as a tax. when you tax or regulate something you tend to get less of it, you tend to diminish it. >> this weekend, republican f.c.c. commissioner robert mcdowell on the effort to create a national broad band plan, net neutrality and other issues. saturday, president obama's ambassador at large for women's issue talks about supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and the role of women and the law on "america and the courts." >> next, a discussion on last year's afghanistan's elections. they talk about their fraud investigation and eventual victory by hamid karzai. they discuss the presidential elections for this may. it was held at the u.s. institute of peace in washington, d.c. >> good morning, everyone. we can proceed. thank everyone for coming. my name is john demps

troops in afghanistan to the estimate pakistan as against more u.s. troops in afghanistan?well, listen, we are always consulting with all of our regional partners about how best to proceed in afghanistan. they were clearly part of the discussions that took place leading up to the president's decision to deploy more forces and i'm also sure i would agree with your characterization of the support or lack thereof but clearly the president made the decision was in the interest of this country and president karzai for there to be more u.s. boots on the ground to assist and stabilize that country. last question. >> i want to follow up briefly on the u.s.-japan relations. assistance secretary is meeting today with former defense minister. do you -- >> [inaudible] -- he has a lunch to get to. >> do you know what -- >> on missile you can leave at any point. i don't take -- despite the fact -- despite the fact i don't take offense. >> neither do i. three suspect he's meeting with somebody from japan you are singing. some of the foreign minister defense, what is the duty hope to achie

he died in afghanistan on monday, undertaking the dangerous work of protecting his fellow soldiers and civilians from explosive devices. the courage and selflessness of this work is truly breathtaking. his sacrifice will not be forgotten, and we send our sincere condolences to his family and friends. i know that the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute also to rupert hamer, who lost his life in afghanistan while reporting from the front line, and to his colleague who was injured. our thoughts are also with their families, friends and colleagues. we are grateful to all those who put themselves in danger to ensure that the world is aware of the bravery of those serving in afghanistan and the realities of life there. because of the devastating earthquake overnight, haiti has moved to the center of the world's thoughts and the world's compassion. the government will respond with emergency aid, including firefighters, emergency equipment and finance, and give further support to help the people of haiti to recover from that devastating event. this morning i had meetings with mi

or afghanistan? or all of the above?'m sorry, ambassador ryan crocker, he is not with us anymore. guest: generally, saudi arabia is the largest and most powerful country on the arabian peninsula. they play a role in all security and economic issues. it is of course a member of the gulf cooperation council which does not include yemen. saudi arabia has substantial interests in yemen. there are over a million young menis who worked in saudi arabia. recently we have seen a fairly significant conflict on the young meni/saudi border involving a coalition of yemeni tribes that have attacked into saudi arabia. saudi arabia has some significant security concerns. saudi arabia is a strong and close u.s. ally and we are consulting closely with them when we look at the challenges that are coming towards all of us from the soil of yemen. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: ambassador, i will try to be civil. can you please take the opportunity there to come clean with the american people? admit that the bush administration u