between general mcchrystal and the ambassador, ambassador eikenberry.hat disagreement was well known before then. now, there will be a different matter in the field and i don't know what the relationship will bait. i hope it will b much stronger. now that general petraeus is still taking over. i have to hope that the friction that did exist between general mcchrystal and eikenberry will now be dissipated with a new commander. >> general petraeus was a field commander and there was criticism by your fellow democrats in the senate. it was suggested that he had been cooking the books on the statistics in iraq. do you think he has overcome all that? how far is the support of general petraeus among senate democrats? >> i have not checked but i think it is strong. he has proven himself in the field and he is a supporter of the president's policy. it is the architect of the counter insurgency strategy. i have not heard any of those kind of commons from my colleagues -- comments from my college. these events happened quickly but i have not heard anything like t

>> well, you know, he's clearly known ambassador eikenberry for a long time. both of them are infantry officers in the army. they both kind of grew up together around the same tile. they had different career paths. but it's clearly someone he knows and as pete suggested, i'm sure he will go out of his way to forge a close relationship with. despite the fact that they may have some differences on how best to sort of prosecute the campaign. he's clearly spent time with karzai. mcchrystal had the main relationship there and mcchrystal and karzai had a very warm relationship. you know, the petraeus/karzai relationship may not be as warm. i think petraeus may use his influence to push karzai to do things that may not be as comfortable for him. i think... you know, petraeus is very savvy in managing that relationship. so it may not be as smooth from the outside but it may be more productive . >> woodruff: kimberly kagan, picking up on what you started to bring up a moment ago, the skills that served him well in iraq. because people look at the two wars and say they

twice already in the last four days, general petraeus, ambassador eikenberry, myself , and doug lou, the national security council senior director the four of us had secure phone conversations of the sort we hadn't had previously to work on implementation . and it's interesting, the very first issue that was raised and the very first call, which was on saturday, raised by david petraeus was electricity for kandahar as part of the kandahar operation. now, that's an issue we've been working on for a long time. >> ifill: and it's part of this overall counter-insurgency strategy? >> it's a central, central issue for the campaign in kandahar, to get electricity to the people as part of our overall counter-insurgency. but the point i want to make is david petraeus raised it, ambassador eikenberry immediately said he supported what general pretrace was proposing, and since i'd already been working on, i them-- as soon as the call was over-- i called the head of a.i.d. and the deputy secretary state jack loo we're working on it to accelerate an ongoing process. tomorrow morning we will have

eikenberry -- he felt betrayed by eikenberry when a cable said do not increase troops, karzai cannottrusted at the same time general mcchrystal was looking for a surge in troops. it makes the question of can it work together well back to the table. jim jones, calling him a clown, one of his aides, i have no idea where that came from. there seems to be the kind of insular tightknit group that i would expect them -- you are making very strategic-level decisions and you are dealing with the press every day. it doesn't seem like they get that they are at a different level of war and strategically they are saying these things out loud. guys on a corner and a bore can say these things. saying it in front of the boss, it does show a poor command culture, and you wonder if they made a good decision. host: democratic line, brady. caller: we have a serious problem here. the general's comments show where we are any nation right now. our country -- we are a nation that needs to be concernnd about america becoming a failure as a nation. this is prevalent in the military, our legislative branch, a

there's maybe the one "about -- the one quote about eikenberry. what about this was something general mcchrystal did that was so bad to warren being relieved from office stocks -- to warrant being relieved from office? >> i honestly, when i first read it i was nearly sick. it made me sick literally and figuratively. i was stunned. secondly, general mcchrystal is responsible for his people. he has every bit as much responsibility for what was in that and what his people said as the individuals who said it. the accountability that goes along with the that, general mcchrystal understands that completely and it is reflected by the fact that he offered his resignation. the essence of this, it was clear that a challenged and in its totality and challenges civilian control which is a fundamental principle for us that is not challenge will. that is why the action was taken. crus are you worried about the fallout from the mcchrystal controversy that military-media relations which is already kind of tenuous to begin with will deteriorated? officers will not

it was between general mcchrystal and ambassador, ambassador eikenberry. i think that was well known before that. . i have not heard any of those kind of comments from my colleagues. these events happened. >> [inaudible] given the differences between iraq and afghanistan. >> i would give you two or three reasons. we would like to see if he can carry the strategy of this is a counter insurgency strategy. this kind of experience and strength is critically important. the thing we would want the least is for their two p 41 general to leave without the next one being ready to take over. >> there were complimentary comments made about the president's decision to place david petraeus. will the taliban simply wait this out? how old do you respond? >> that is not new. the republicans have opposed the setting of that date. general mccrystal and david petraeus and secretary gates have supported that. the only way that you can get the afghan people to focus on the needs to take responsibility for the security of their own country if they understand that this is not an

is that an issue that you and ambassador eikenberry are going to take to president karzai to talk about how they can empower local officials rather than have a national ineffectual government? >> well, certainly. again, a key to this is helping the release -- to the reestablishment of a viable calo ", organizing structured -- a dot the reestablishment of a viable, organizing structures, if you will. president karzai is aware of the challenge is present at lower levels. he has empowered governors. interestingly, helmand province has one of the most active governors in all of afghanistan. the challenge there is not one of desire. it is literally a lack of human capital. and in predicting there, human capital that is willing to go into a really tough spot like that in marja where there are requirements and demands and there are locations elsewhere that are safer. but that is certainly something that we have to address. you must complement the activities. you must build on the security foundation that our troopers and afghan troopers fight so hard to provide. >> thank you. my time has expir

to go on the record and undermine the president and ambassador eikenberry, the vice president, the national security adviser, ambassador richard holbrook publicly and to allow his staff to do that, it just shows the lack of good order and discipline within his unit or within his command in afghanistan. if i had behaviored that way or colonel shaver behaved that way and undermined a brigade commander in front of our troops, we would be reprimanded. this kind of insubordination from people inside the military will not be tolerated. and it was personal attacks to make it worse. >> colonel, what's your side? >> i agree with the captain's assessment of the situation, but there's some, i think, mitigating issues we have to look at, realistically. general patton survived saying pretty outlandish things to the press as well. presence is there for good officers to continue. i don't want to defend mccrystal's bad actions. what i'm here to say is that the president has to consider what's best for his strategy. let me be painfully clear here. our center is not for -- break break if you're going to go w

support he was receiving from the white house, about the civilian leadership, in holbrooke, and eikenberryout this looming deadline that's sort of hanging around the necks of our troops of july 2011, but whether or not this policy can succeed when we're telling our enemy when we're going to leave the battlefield. basically, mcchrystal had to wait four months to meet with the president. when he did, it was a scolding session in europe on air force one. as the author said, it had been -- obama has only visited afghanistan once since the war started. for something as important as afghanistan. i think that's the frustration mcchrystal expressed that needs to be addressed by the president. >> larry: michael, the president said today they were in agreement on policy. >> yeah, yes, i think -- i mean, one of the things -- one of the sort of, in my view, positive things about this article is that it gave us a chance to sort of discuss the afghanistan policy. i think there are some serious, serious problems with it. one of the main ones being the relationship between the military and civilian side.

statements made prior to this and to go on the record and undermine the president and ambassador eikenberry, the president, the national security adviser, ambassador richard holbrooke publicly and to allow the staff to do that it just shows the lack of discipline within the unit or within his command in afghanistan. if i had behaved that way or colonel schafer and undermined a commander, we would be relieved. the president needs to send a signal to the troops on the ground that insubordination from within the uniformed military is not tolerated. >> larry: colonel, when's your side? >> i agree with the captain's assessment of the situation but there's i think mitigating issues. look at world war ii. general patton survived two incidents of slapping troops and saying outlandish things to the press, as well. precedence is there. i don't want to defend general mcchrystal's bad actions but i'm here to say the president has to consider when's best for his strategy and, larry, let me be painfully clear here. for the strategy, break, break, if you go with the strategy the way it is, you have to pic

and the president karzai meeting, he was with general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry. >> did he take part in the meeting with karzai? >> i think that that was a separate meeting of the security council. susan rice was in that meeting. >> they were in the same room with karzai? can you tell us about the atmosphere there? >> my understanding is that prior to the meeting, general mcchrystal reached out to both ambassador holbrooke and his apologies for the article. >> what does this building make of the comments that have been so widely discussed? >> i think our focus is on the ongoing strategy. as robert gibbs just said, all members of the national security team feel that general mcchrystal has made us sit in it -- a significant mistake. he will be coming back to rescheduled meeting but thee president on afghan and pakistan policy. >> what does the secretary make, if anything, that she appears to be the only one on the senior national security team that comes out looking good from the mcchrystal comments? >> she as every member thinks that german crystals at all. she presented the

crowley says general stanley mcchrystal has apologized to call eikenberry for his negative comments.his is five minutes. >> richard holbrooke is and kabul today. he had meetings with u.s. and afghan officials as part is his regular travels in the region

there is talk that ambassador aiken very -- that there needs to be a larger purge -- ambassador eikenberry. host: this is a coalition project with the u.s. and the lead. we also have relationships with the other countries involved. how does it all work between u.s. military and coalition partners? when there is a big change like this. yet guest: position as commander of nato troops and u.s. troops as well. it is the same command structure as it was before. host: when you have a top command changeover, is it pretty much seamless for the operation or disruptive? guest: i think it depends on the circumstances. this choice was obviously try to make it as seamless as possible. by accounts overnight, everybody seems to agree, almost total lack of opposition to sending in general petraeus. perhaps nobody could have gone in with the least amount of rubles to the water. he wrote a book on counter insurgency. he was mcchrystal's boss. he has the trust a pretty much the entire washington establishment, republicans and the hill to think tanks to the general public. he is also very well known internati

is that an issue that you and ambassador eikenberry are going to take to president karzai to talk about how they can empower local officials rather than have a national ineffectual government? >> well, certainly. again, a key to this is helping the release -- to the reestablishment of a viable calo ", organizing structured -- a dot the reestablishment of a viable, organizing structures, if you will. president karzai is aware of the challenge is present at lower levels. he has empowered governors. interestingly, helmand province has one of the most active governors in all of afghanistan. the challenge there is not one of desire. it is literally a lack of human capital. and in predicting there, human capital that is willing to go into a really tough spot like that in marja where there are requirements and demands and there are locaons elsewhere that are safer. but that is certainly something that we have to address. you must complement the activities. you must build on the security foundation that our troopers and afghan troopers fight so hard to provide. >> thank you. my time has expired

there is one "about the eikenberry from general mcchrystal. what was it that mcchrystal did that was so bad to warrant being relieved from opposite? did you immediately conclude that he needed to be relieved? >> honestly, when i first read it i was sick. it made me literally physically sick. i could not believe it. i was stunned. secondly, general mcchrystal is responsible for his people. he has every bit of responsibility for what was in that and what his people said as the individuals who said it. the accountability that goes along with that, as general mcchrystal understands that completely. it is reflected by the fact that he offered his resignation. the essence of it, it was clear that it challenged civilian control which is a fundamental principle for us that is not challengeable. it was not, it is not, and it will not be in the future. >> military media relations, which are always full of tension, are deteriorating. officers will not want to engage because of what happened to mcchrystal. what do you tell that kind of mindset? >> general

. >> when you say it's time to start over, it is time for eikenberry to go? >> i will leave that up to the president. i want him to believe that he made the right decision by sending more troops and we are at a pital government -- pivotal point right now. the karzai government is the government of afghanistan. from my observation, not just from the rolling stone article, but there's a lot of attention that makes it very hard to move forward in a coherent fashion. and it comes to what the president had to back, -- had to act, the statements of the general were not only outside the norm, but they've put into question military insubordination of civilian control. letting a reporter from the rolling stone all your round is the first question. [laughter] and these officers that are named, i understand you were warriors and you have been shot at in your brain. but the language used, the cavalier attitude, the disrespect -- even though you may have disagreements -- they were unacceptable. this is a low point for the armed forces in a very long time and i'm glad the

among the right people, since, in fact, general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry going in have beenhe addition of a nato representative, a very capable person. and then most recently, there's an eu rep there as well. in fact, when i was in the uk this past week, i talked to the eu foreign secretary, if you will, and she described her strong commitment to the mission there as ll. and all of them were involved in our civil military review of concept drill that ambassador holbrooke and i coasted in kabul now about two months or so ago. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm going to take a minute to clarify some of the numbers that senator collins listed because there's been some confusion about it and is a critical number when it comes to the trainers, the omelets, the pomlets. this is a critical mission to get them to take responsibility for their own security. i'm going to take a mute to go throh those numbers. you said there's a shortfall of 450, what you call institutional trainers essentially. these are what i kind of call the basic training. but that's 450 shortfall. ther

among the right people, since, in fact, general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry going in have been the addition of a nato representative, a very capable person. and then most recently, there's an eu rep there as well. in fact, when i was in the uk this past week, i talked to the eu foreign secretary, if you will, and she described her strong commitment to the mission there as well. and all of them were involved in our civil military review of concept drill that ambassador holbrooke and i coasted in kabul now about two months or so ago. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm going to take a minute to clarify some of the numbers that senator collins listed because there's been some confusion about it and it's a critical number when it comes to the trainers, the omelets, the pomlets. this is a critical mission to get them to take responsibility for their own security. i'm going to take a minute to go through those numbers. you said there's a shortfall of 450, what you call institutional trainers essentially. these are what i kind of call the basic training. but that's 450 short

there is maybe the one "about eikenberry from general mcchrystal. what is it that mcchrystal did that was so bad to warrant being relieved of all this? did you immediately conclude that he needed to be relieved? >> honestly, when i first read it i was sick. it made me literally physically -- i could not believe in it. i was stunned. secondly, general mcchrystal is responsible for his people. he has every bit as much responsibility for what was in that and what his people said as the individuals who said it. the accountability that goes along with that -- and general mcchrystal understands that completely -- is tendered by the fact that he offered his resignation. in the absence of its, it was clear that it challenged in its totality civilian control, which is a fundamental principle for us that is not unchallengeable -- that is not challengealb.e le. >> military media relations, which her usually tenuous, officers will not want to engage. what do you tell that kind of mindset about the need to engage the press? is the press to blame in this case? >>