kilcullen's definition. i would say just to support him, what we don't want is an attack on the u.s. homeland, which emanates from this region and we don't want, in my view, a government or a group that allows training camps and missions to be planned from this region. that is what i think we can reliable tell the american public we are looking to prevent. >> dr. biddle? >> i agree wholeheartedly on me colleagues on the panel but the only amendment i would offer i would be cautious on identifying the threat of terrorist attacks to the united states too narrowly around al-qaeda per se. it has been the primary source of such threat in the past. if its destruction leads other organizations in pakistan, however, to shift their aims in ways they have not heretofore and take up the banner of al-qaeda's war against the distant enemy, the underlying identification of our interests implies that we would then have to broaden our target somewhat. but the focus of it is exactly as dr. kilcullen and dr. jones have sugges

kilcullen's definition. i would say just to support him, what we do not want is an attack on the u.s. homeland. that emanates from this region and we do not want in my view a government for a group that allows training camps and missions to the plan from this region. that is what i think we can reliably tell the american public we are looking to prevent. >> dr. bill? >> i agree wholeheartedly with my new members on the panel. i would be cautious of identifying the threats to narrowly around al qaeda. it has been the primary source in the past. if this destruction leads other organizations to shift their aims in ways that they have not heretofore and take up the banner of al qaeda's war against the distant enemy, the underlying identification of our interest implies that we would then have to broaden our target someone. but the focus of that is exactly as dr. docca: -- dr. kilcullen and dr. jones has said. >> let me elaborate on that. what degree of the death of osama bin laden could pakistan joined wholehear

kilcullen? >> yes, senator. i think we have covered this to some extent.ust to rehash, do we need to do it? yes. because if we lose the war, that all of the money we have spent so far would be to not. aught. can we afford it? that is the purpose of focusing on the drawdown right now. 80 percent of the costs of the war is the cost of u.s. combat involvement. another 10% is ansf development and -- involvement and 10% is civilian assistance. the devil in the detail is the issue of demobilization. if you expand the afghan security forces to 378,000 and order to win the combat phase, what are you doing with all those armed guys afterwards? what is the plan to put them into productive labor rather than having them on the street with weapons? that has been the achilles' heel of most foreign security assistance programs of this type. it is something the people in afghanistan are well aware of. but it is something that we are willing to engage with as a priority problem as we get closer to 2014. >> so you then agree with the assessment that we need to increase the