attendees included peter mcdonald along with white house chief of staff john kelly, senator joseph dunford and presented jeff denham of california. this is 15 minutes. , honorableu president of this great united states of america, president trump. that you for inviting us now to hope code talkers to the capital and to the white house of this great nation we call united states. us three ofve with the 13 surviving navajo code talkers of world war ii. -- he survived the battle. his landing craft was blown up and he had to swim to the beach to survive. saipan, he got shut up really badly. he survived one year in naval hospital. thomas, also one of the code talkers that was on iwo jima. a tough battle, three marine divisions landed on eulogy -- iwo jima. the code talkers within the fifth marine division, also, as if marine corps was not enough, he was is it any united states army. that awful battle. brian is peter mcdonald, i am -- i am nott israel, i went in when i was 15 1944.old in that we went onto north china toh sixth marine division get the japanese in northern china to surrender. they d

secretary shanahan, general dunford, general salvo, former v.a. secretary jim peak. korean veterans association and representatives of our veterans service organizations. assembled veterans, v.a. colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. i do not think i've left anybody else. the department of army engineers of two missions, to honor the dead and care for the living. in accordance with a solemn promise made by abraham lincoln in his second inaugural address, we at the v.a. keep that promise 365 days a year. in this pastor, we've made great progress in also keeping

we had great cooperation by general dunford and other generals going back to general petraeus. .. he recently spoke publicly about this being a serious problem. my concern, and i will say this, you are a high visibility target when you travel. when the chairman travels, even someone as lowly as i is a high visible target. you can't use the restrictions on your travel the same for a high-level employee. even with them, there has been a growing reluctance by the state department to let the people go outside of the embassy, even to the green zone. i will cite you two examples, and i don't want to take too much of your time. one was the u.s. military wanted me to see an afghan base and see how they were protecting the taxpayers dollars by setting up a system to protect fuel. i was to walk 100 feet with my staff with the u.s. military assigned protection detail that goes over multiple times a day and the ambassador refused to let us go even though general kaiser and general nicholson wanted to see that. that is the problem. >> i get the sense of that will tell you what. i'm sure this c

that is something even general dunford recently spoke about publicly as a serious problem. i know president ghani has tried to do something about that. my concern, and i will say this, you are a high visibility target when you travel, when the chairman travels, even somebody as lonely as i, i am a high visibility target. you cannot use restrictions on your travel the same for the average diplomat or employee. them, there has been a growing reluctance by the state department to let the people go outside of the embassy. even to the green zone. i think the -- i will cite two examples. i do not want to take to much of your time -- too much of your time. the u.s. military wanted me to and how they base were protecting the taxpayers dollars by setting up a system to protect fuel. i was to walk 100 feet with my staff with a u.s. military assigned protection detail that goes over multiple times a day, and the ambassador refused to let us go. even though the generals wanted us to see that. that is the problem. rep. lynch: i get the sense of that. i am sure this committee will be hav

secretary mattis, secretary zinke, all the members of the cabinet, secretary wilson, general dunford, general salv admiral caldwell and admiral michael. to director mclara, to distinguished members of congress and all of our honored guests, but most of all, to the men and women of the armed forces of the united states of america, and to all our veterans who have worn the uniform of this great nation, happy veterans day. [applaus [applause] >> there's a day in the spring when we remember those who served and did not come home, but today, veterans day, is the day when all across america in gatherings large and small, we pause to remember those who served and did come home. for nearly a century, since the guns of the first world war fell silent, and the 11th hour, the 11th day, the 11th month, the american people have observed this day, first as armistice day and now as veterans day. and i thank you all who are here, and all that are gathered around this nation for continuing this great tradition. and to our heroes near and far, i bring veterans day greetings from a great champion for th

something general dunford spoke about recently. this is a serious program. and i know president has tried to do something about that. my concern and i will say this. you're a high visibility target when you travel, when the chairman travels, even someone as lowly as i am a high visibility target. so you can't use restrictions on your travel the same for the average diplomat or sigar employee. but even with then there has been a growing reluctance by the state department to let hpeople go outside of the embassy, even to the green zone and i think the classic -- i'll site you two examples and i don't want to take too much of your time. but one was the u.s. military wanted me to see an afghan base and to see how they were protecting the taxpayers' dollars by setting up a system to protect fuel. i was to walk 100 feet with a u.s. military assigned protection detail that goes over multiple time as day and the ambassador refused to let us go, even though general kaiser and nicholson wanted us to see that. that is the problem. >> okay. i get the sense of that. tell

secretary shanahan, general dunford, general salvo, former v.a. secretary jim peak.iation and representatives of our veterans service organizations. assembled veterans, v.a. colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. i do not think i've left anybody else. the department of army engineers of two missions, to honor the dead and care for the living. in accordance with a solemn promise made by abraham lincoln in his second inaugural address, we at the v.a. keep that promise 365 days a year. in this pastor, we've made great progress in also keeping president trump's promise to veterans, strengthening our ability to provide timely, high-quality care and that if outcomese improving and experiences for veterans. twice he year we invite the nation to join us in keeping lincoln's promise by honoring the dead on memorial dead and honoring the living on veterans day. there was a time when more americans understood the importance of honoring the living. many more americans had connections with the military. in the 1950's, nearly half of all americans, 45 percent, had

dunford, in recent testimony commented how they use information. the one thing we author is we institutional memory. a lot of the agencies don't anymore. and people serve nothing afghanistan, some have gone tours, but many months, nine months, a year at most, we have people or three yearsgo and our agency has been around while, relying on institutional memory. ost: lots of calls coming in for john sopko, special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. chris, you are up first from katy, texas, good morning. aller: great, thank you for taking my call. i have a couple questions in regard to drug trade and the deposit necessary afghanistan. the government narrative since this isn't war, this is a -- not a war choice, a necessity, both presidents bush and obama were referenced 9/11 and i think it important to note that the timing of military action in afghanistan, as you know, came 9/11.ys after since 2001, production of -- has increased providing 90% of the nonpharmaceutical grade opiates of the world. world market, so that originated the wor

dunford, in recent testimony commented how they use information. the one thing we author is we institutional memory. a lot of the agencies don't anymore. and people serve nothing afghanistan, some have gone tours, but many months, nine months, a year at most, we have people or three yearsgo and our agency has been around while, relying on institutional memory. ost: lots of calls coming in for john sopko, special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. chris, you are up first from katy, texas, good morning. aller: great, thank you for taking my call. i have a couple questions in regard to drug trade and the deposit necessary afghanistan. the government narrative since this isn't war, this is a -- not a war choice, a necessity, both presidents bush and obama were referenced 9/11 and i think it important to note that the timing of military action in afghanistan, as you know, came 9/11.ys after since 2001, production of -- has increased providing 90% of the nonpharmaceutical grade opiates of the world. world market, so that originated the wor

jennifer -- general dunford, head of the joint chiefs of staff and general kelly, i have to say, i said to general kelly, i said how good -- the chief is the general and the chief. i said have been with his code talkers, he said sir, you have no idea. you have no idea how great they were, what they've done for this country and the strength in the bravery and the love that they had for the country and that you have for the country so that was the ultimate statement from general kelly and i want to thank you because you are very special people, you are here long before any of us were here although we have a representative in congress who they say was here long time ago. they call her pocahontas. but i like you, you are special. you are special people, you are really incredible people, from the heart, we appreciate what you done -- you have done, how you've done it, the bravery you have displayed, tom i would say that is as good as it gets, ouldn't you say? general kelly, come up for one second, i want to have your say what you told me about the code talkers. it really has been learning ab

secretary dunford, excuse me, chairman of the joint chiefs general dunford in recent ethnic comment about how to use our information. the one thing we offer is with institutional memory. a lot of the agencies don't anymore. the people serving in afghanistan, although some have gone through multiple tours, that many stay six months, nine months, a year at most. we have people in afghanistan who are serving two or three years and, of course, our agencies been around for a while. people rely on our institutional memory also. >> host: calls continue to come in this morning for john sopko, the special inspector general. chris, your of first from katy, texas. good morning. >> caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i'm calling with regard to the drug trade and the mineral deposits in afghanistan. the government in 2001 said this isn't a war, this is not a war choice but it's a war of necessity. both presidents bush and obama reference 9/11 and i think it's important to note the timing of military action in afghanistan as you know came 27 days after 9/11. but since 2001 the production has

also, general dunford, head of the joint chiefs of staff, and general kelly. and i have to say, i said to general kelly, i said, general, how good, here he is right there, the chief; he's the general and the chief. i said, how good were these code talkers? what was it? he said, sir, you have no idea. you have no idea how great they were, what they've done for this country, and the strength and the bravery and the love that they had for the country and that you have for the country. so that was the ultimate statement from general kelly, the importance. and i just want to thank you because you're very, very special people. you were here long before any of us were here, although we have a representative in congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. they call her pocahontas. but you know what, i like you because you are special. you are special people. you are really incredible people. and from the heart, from the absolute heart, we appreciate what you've done, how you've done it, the bravery that you displayed, and the love that you have for your country.

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dunford is was due to be in islamabad to have talks with the with the pakistani authorities on the future of the relationship to be followed by the defense secretary james mattis so we'll see whether there is what kind of follow through there will be in the meantime the pakistanis have been. have have their position is clear as well of the pakistan national assembly a few months ago attacked trump as calling his position threatening and. using the word hostile so whether this is actually an escalation in the relations or the tense the tense tension in the relations between the two countries we'll just have to see in the in the forthcoming few weeks come back and thank you very much indeed for. prosecutors in egypt say a gunman who stormed a mosque in sinai carrying an eye so flat officially there is still no claim of responsibility but egypt's military has already become bombing targets part of a pledge by president sisi that those behind the attack would not go unpunished with a three hundred people are now known to have died in the attack

what concerns me is that when general nicholson or general dunford testified that 60% of the funding going to the taliban terrorists comes from narcotics trafficking, and we have no strategy, now i think we all read in the press how we focused on isis and their relationship to oil production and we bombed the heck out of that oil production to cut off that funding source. poor general nicholson is trying to fight the taliban and no one's focusing on 60% of the funding going to the taliban. now, that's a serious problem. that is the per verbial elephant in the -- perverbial elephant in the room. we will never win in afghanistan if we don't focus on the whole narcotics problem. mr. massie: in my brief time left, i want to talk about what winning looks like because i think there's also this public perception that stands in stark contrast what i heard from you and also from our secretary of state recently who i think is more of a realist here. there's this public notion we routed the taliban and if we leave they'll come back to power. yet, secretary tillerson says basically we are fighti

do you agree with the statements by generals allen and dunford? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> secondly, the question i had, would you be just as straight forward and honest about very uncomfortable subjects, such as the threat that we're facing, as these uniforms? >> yes, sir. >> i believe you will, too. not just the uniforms are important but the secretaries are important. i have very much of a concern about that. general or dr. esper, general milli wrote talking about the sustained readiness saying the go of the army's sustained readiness model is to have 66%, not to maintain because we're not there now, to achieve 66% of the force in a combat ready status at any moment by the year 2023. now, would you say that under this model, do you think we're on track to reach that goal? >> senator, my understanding is the army is on track to reach that goal. my certainly view is that's not fast enough, so if confirmed, i would like to look at ways working with the chief and senior army leaders to find ways to accelerate that particularly given the challenges

those numbers that steve and i were most frequently there, the petraeus, mcchrystal, allen, dunford era, the numbers were around 50% and now they're probably continuing to decline as people get frustrated with the war. the second point, there are still a number of afghan officials, reformers, leaders who want us there either because they know they're not yet up to doing the job themselves, they need to build the air force or what have you, or because we provide a little bit of an honest broker effect even among people who don't like us. they still know we're not taking sides between groups. we don't have favorites and that's part of why the iraqis tolerate us. they see us as neutral, even if they don't tend to like us. the third point however and here i'll be wary of this afghan support. there are a lot of people who want us there because we're the sugar daddies, providing the influx of resources and they have learned to feed off of that. of course that is a fundamental challenge to the mission and there's still a huge amount of corruption in afghanistan so a lot of people want us there

do you agree with the statements by generals allen and dunford? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> secondly, the question i had, would you be just as straight forward and honest about very uncomfortable subjects, such as the threat that we're facing, as these uniforms? >> yes, sir. >> i believe you will, too. not just the uniforms are important but the secretaries are important. i have very much of a concern about that. general or dr. esper, general milli wrote talking about the sustained readiness saying the go of the army's sustained readiness model is to have 66%, not to maintain because we're not there now, to achieve 66% of the force in a combat ready status at any moment by the year 2023. now, would you say that under this model, do you think we're on track to reach that goal? >> senator, my understanding is the army is on track to reach that goal. my certainly view is that's not fast enough, so if confirmed, i would like to look at ways working with the chief and senior army leaders to find ways to accelerate that particularly given the challenges

. >> but you get the impression occasionally from what dunford says or james mattis that maybe there are alternatives we don't know about. is that possible that maybe there are ways to stop them that we have not yet spoken about? that doesn't make sense to you, does it? >> unless you're talking about some kind of secret weapons capability that i don't know about. it's been six years since i was secretary. >> sure. >> but i think even then that is -- that does not stop it forever. you can delay it. you can make it harder. but i think once they have possession of the technology, the only way you prevent them from ever deploying nuclear weapons that can reach the united states or our allies is through some kind of a political agreement. >> has donald trump done great damage to the american presidency? >> well, i think -- first of all, i think he's identified something that political leaders in both parties either ignored or were ignorant of for a long time, and that was there were a lot of people in this country that felt like the political elites were ignoring them and ignoring how clo

and jim dunford, joint chiefs of staff, for continuing that campaign.s progressed pretty much the way we envisioned it two years ago. it was necessary to destroy the fact and the idea that there can be anis lambic state based on that ideology. >> it's not just about beating them there. >> no. but this did take away the base from which they were plotting in mows up and raqqa every day to kill americans. and with respect to inspired attacks of the kind of a loser orphan attic on the internet getting all jazzed up about this idea of the islamic state, you can't is stop that entirely. that is mostly a law enforcement and intelligence matter. but by destroying so visibly the islamic state, it is hard for anybody however deluded to believe this is a happening thing. now i always thought that having completed the military campaign successfully, which i was always confident we would do but i'm glad it's done or there's still parts to mop up, that it would outrun the political and economic campaign. that's what concerns me most at this juncture, chris. and that

>> i think, look, i have every confidence in the current leadership of the pentagon, general joe dunfordman better. and the is a secretary of defense mad dog general mattis i think they are on top this. again, we are fighting 8 years of neglect. it's going to take some time to get into it. to change, to fix the leadership issues and get the equipment up to speed. >> melissa: let me ask you about one of the most astonishing stories of the week. and this is that 24-year-old soldier who ran over the -- who drove and then was shot from the border across the border into south korea. i mean, barreling out in a car when he ran into a ditch, jumping out, i mean he was shot at close range. you know, the north koreaible soldiers that were following him crossed the border into south korea realized it and turned around and then later when it was dark, his body was dragged over to the south korean side. he survived and then they found parasites in his body. that were huge and shocking. >> the size of rattlesnakes. >> melissa: how is that possible? the story is so shocking what's the most appalling or

american defense secretary or at least the chief of staff general dunford is scheduled to be in pakistan and to be followed later by defense minister defense secretary rather james mattis and we can see that this is just part of the toughening up preparations for those visits to pakistan so indeed and the administration is saying in that statement today that repercussions could well happen between pakistan on the u.s. it could really affect their relationship what sort of things to think they're looking at. well it's not only the fact that has been more critical of pakistan's position and performance in cracking down on extremists it's also has decided to leaning towards india the fact that he's called for india to be more engaged in afghanistan that was a red line or rather a red light for pakistan and so what we're seeing here is. toughening position on the on the american the american side and clearly a much more definitive attitude towards the india pakistan divide many thanks tom a kind of a nagging him giving us what will flash on that story now to egypt where prosecutors say gunme

that's been further fleshed out by recent congressional testimony by secretary mattis and general dunford and other statements from other parts of the u.s. government. what are realistic goals? for the foreseeable future. what are the main concepts, the main things we're doing with these additional forces and other capabilities that hopefully can help us achieve realistic goals? how long will it take and then what's the role for negotiation? so again, beyond the question of strategic stakes that i've already touched on, what are more realistic operational goals? what are the main concepts for what we're doing with these added resources on the ground? what are the timelines we have to think about for this kind of a strategy to have any chance? and then finally, what if any role can we aspire to for negotiations with the taliban and the afghan government? in terms of realistic goals, and chris in his introduction alluded to the kinds of things i want to talk about here, he mentioned that by u.s. intelligence estimates as repeated by the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction wh

>> look i know general dunford and i think he has made a very clear statement of the fact to do certain to have troops on the ground. this goes back, again, to clinton. clinton proposed the same thing. i mean, i have worked these options. i have walked the terrain. i have been to the dmz. i have been there. with that said you cannot step away from having military force. that's the one thing that's been absent in the last 30 years of negotiations. let me add to, this we need to deal with china. the reason that north korea china has allowed it to be a client state. my advice to president trump is you need to use north korea to force china to do the right thing. i think the chinese next to the south koreans have the most to lose by an armed conflict. we need to remind people in the region what the consequences would be of an armed conflict but at the same time be prepared to use one. brian: by the way, david, we are waiting in any language in any country in any custom. this looks like imminent toast and president trump will be coming up there shortly. david, the other thing that is clear i

were working and ready one for thicker air brigades and half of our divisions were ready and general dunford said and to this committee, it's pretty shocking. he said if we don't address this dynamic and change predictable funding over the course of several years we will lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive advantage. that's a pretty shocking statement. .. >> the uniforms are importantbue important. so i have very much a concern about the general -- general millie wrote talking about the goal of the sustained readiness, he said that the goal of this army sustained readiness model is to have 66%, and this is not maintained because were not there now, to achieve 56% of the force in a combat ready status at any moment by the year 2023. now, would you sanded this model do you think we are on track to reach that goal? >> my understanding is the army is on track to reach that goal. my personal goal is that it's not fast enough. if confirmed, i like to look for ways to accelerate that, particularly even the challenges we face in the international scene. >> let me also complement you. t

only a third of our brigade combat teams were ready, one fourth of our air brigade, and then general dunford said to this committee, it was pretty shocking. don't address this, we will lose our qualitative and competitive advantage. that is a pretty shocking statements. i just want to ask two questions, yes or no. would you agree with -- would you agree with these statements? yes. yes. >> yes. >> would you be just as straightforward and honest as these uniforms? >> yes. >> yes. >> i believe you will. not only the uniforms are important for the secretaries are important. i feel that way. wrote,er, general milli talking about the goal is rained readiness, he said the goal of 66% to achieveve in a combat ready status. at any moment. now would you say that under this model, do you think that we are on track to reach that goal? is that thetanding army is on track to reach that goal. my personal view is that is not fast enough. if confirmed, i would like to work with leaders to accelerate that. challengesgiven the on the international scene. >> let me complement you. the answer you gave to senator

secretary mattis has testified on this at earlier occasions, as well as general dunford. our troops and the american public deserves an open debate on the extent of military operations, if not in your 17, then your 30, 40, 50. i want to -- that year 30, 40, 50. i want to introduce this document regarding high risk activities in africa. it designates 14 nations, father which have -- five of which have -- and this is from the obama administration, this plan a scopents for counterterrorism and africa far greater than what is briefed to congress and significant greater than what the american public understands. >> senator flake and i have -- and to finally engage us in our response ability. you signed a letter to congress opposing the proposal. i will introduce that for the record as well. i think we can stipulate this administration, what the two preceding administrations, believe the 2001 authorization gives it broad power in this area and would rather not have any congressional revision. but we have a job to do. let me ask you about your reasoning. your first objection to

and then general dunford said, and to this committee -- it's pretty shocking. he said, if we don't address this dynamic with sustained, sufficient and predictable funding over the course of several years, we will lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive advantage. that's a pretty shocking statement. so i would like to ask two questions of each one of you, and just yes or no questions. do you agree with the statements by generals allen and did yunfo? >> yes. >> yes. >> and secondly, the question i have, would you be just as straight forward and honest about very uncomfortable subjects such as the threat that we're facing as these uniforms? >> yes, sir >> yes, sir. >> yeah, i believe you will, too. and it's not just -- the uniforms are important, but the secretaries are important. and so i have -- very much a concern about that. general, or dr. esper, general milley wrote, talking about the go of the sustained readiness. he said that the go of armys sustained readiness model is to have 66% of -- and this is not to maintain, because we're not there now. b

when donald trump surprised everyone with that tweet in july you had general dunford and mattis saying we will study this. they know, they are the 1%. >> they are dealing with racial issues, gender issues and issues like this they know how to deal with this. they said let us manage this the president were dealing with it at the granular level they've succeeded here. >> all right. well. casey, before you go, john conyers. go. >> well. where shall i start? >> look a. lot of people think this is the tip of the iceberg on sexual harassment. i think in this particular case, there is a story in the "new york times" this morning i would commend to you that includes details about conyer's overall state of being. he is the deny of the house, 88-years-old, there is a lot of frustration within the democratic ranks this guy should step aside and make loom for new leadership. the "time's" reports he showed up at two separate meetings in pajamas, the woman filed the lawsuit earlier this year, decided not to go forward after a woman said she would keep it sealed t. environment the processes in congre

nuclear attack on china or on else, that the sensible people we have as mattis, y of defense general dunfordthe chairman of the joint chiefs or general mc master, head of the nfc staff, would advise the president that to discuss this order, o they want to outline the options and consequences and perhaps try to talk him down from that. you think there need to be more checks and balances when it comes to the president's launch a nuclear attack? guest: i don't think you could nice, but would be there is such a short period of time, if you are going to depend deterrents, on the ability to attack, then you congressional authorization before responding attack, in my view. many would disagree with that. host: a few minutes left with the stimson n of center, co-founder, twshed fellow there, taking your questions. daniel is in bellevue, florida. line for democrats. daniel, go ahead. caller: thank you. speak sure to be able to with mr. blechman. contemporaries,e i'm 71 years plus. anyway, i called regarding this atter before many years ago when you were all were talking about nuclear warfare and incid

general dunford chairman of the joint chiefs strategy in place which is actually being very effective our allies do the hard work of defeating isis globally. we have folks in niger as you know. we are doing this in afghanistan. yemen, all these places which are necessary to keep them there and defeat them. we defeated them in iraq and syria. we have to continue the global pressure. more closely, we have to actually do the hard work of espionage. as mentioned by several of the folks prior to me. you need to penetrate the networks. and, frankly, brian, you do that by the old fashioned spying game. espionage. have you got to get people inside the network to defeat the network. lastly defeat the message. not only do we do these hard things. we actually enhance the intelligence capability of local law enforcement strategically work with our allies such as president el-sisi in egypt. other folks in england members of the muslim faith who wish to help us reform the faith to push violence out of it that's not an easy thing. we can't do it. we can help those who want to do that. brian: we need

attendees included peter mcdonald along with white house chief of staff john kelly, senator joseph dunford and presented jeff denham of california. this is 15 minutes.

dunford, in recent testimony commented how they use information. the one thing we author is we