richard formica andÑi lieutenan general william caldwell who also commands the new nato training mission in afghanistan we are grateful for the cooperation provided by these fine officers. unfortunately, the july 30, 2009 report to congress by the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction said c- stica does not have the capability to ensure that u.s. funds are managed effectively and spent wisely. the report in which cstica concurred, the technical representative in country for the contract, had limited experience and had been unable to make field visits to check performance. more resources have since been applied to this problem. but significant questions remain to discuss in this hearing, not only for cstica and d.o.d. but also for the department of state and for the holders of federal contracts. we are fortunate to have the assistance of three panels of expert witnesses to help us

afghanistan approached $1 trillion. going forward, i am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. our new approach in afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year. i will work closely with congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. but as we end the war in iraq in transition to afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. it pays for our military. it underwrites our diplomacy. it taxes the potential of our people and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. that is why our troop commitment in afghanistan cannot be open- ended. because the nation i am most interested in building is our own. let me be clear, none of this will be easy. the struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly and extends well beyond afghanistan and pakistan. it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. and unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that define the 20th ce

afghanistan on monday. mr. speaker, president obama's speech last week on his new strategy in afghanistan is immensely important. he has set a very tight timetable. he has set a very tight timetable indeed for this new military strategy and surge to have an effect. given this tight timetable does the prime minister agree it's all the more important not to overrely on president karzai. president obama said last night the best way forward is to get tough on karzai but given karzai's previous record, given that two of his vice presidents are ex-warlords, does the prime minister not think that it'd be better to have a strategy working around president karzai relying -- relying on local and regional and political leadership instead? >> mr. speaker, president obama will be grateful for his endorsement. [laughter] >> he is absolutely right -- he is absolutely right that we have to both weaken the taliban and strengthen the afghan state. the action we are taking with troops to deal with the insurgency are important. but as he rightly recognizes, so too is building up the strength of the afghan army, its police and loca

will the prime minister assure the house that the new troops going to afghanistan from nato and othercountries will be joined by -- governed by cabinets -- caveats? >> he is right to expect other countries to do more. but over the last few weeks, we have been trying to persuade other nato allies, and indeed allies outside nato, to do more so. but we have to appreciate that we have to build up the afghan forces just as pakistan has got to have a more professional approach to dealing with terrorism. that is where the answer to the problems lie in both pakistan and afghanistan. we won the afghan people themselves to take more responsibility for the run affairs. >> the helicopters -- is the considering purchasing new ones? dollars in any statements on helicopters, they will be made to the house. >> mark lancaster. >> mid that will have to cover the territory army. now that he has seen the error of his ways, can he reassure the house that there will be no cuts to the territorial army budget next year? >> became clear in the last few days the value we attach the territorial army by the deci

afghanistan depends on both military and civilian programs. we must in the civil military approach with the interlocking elements of the new lynaugh strategy. as we consider our course and afghanistan would evaluate options according to how well they contribute to the united states national security. the purpose of committing tens of thousands of troops, billions of additional dollars to iraq and afghanistan must be to enhance united states security and the vital national interest in the region. this may seem to be an obvious point, but during long wars, specific tactical objections can become in some cells. disconnected from the broader strategic concept or encountering of finite resources. pursuing al qaeda or the taliban and in proving governance and economic opportunity in afghanistan are important, but when our country commits the level of force is contemplated by the president to a sustained war, the objective must be absolutely fundamental, the united states security. this is especially true at a time when our armed forces are restrained by many years of high deployment rates, our capacity for new government debt is limited and our na

afghanistan on monday. mr. speaker, president obama's speech last week on his new strategy in afghanistan is immensely important he has set a very tight timetable. he has set a very tight timetable indeed for this new military strategy and surge to have an effect. given this tight timetable does the prime minister agree it's all the more important not to overrely on president karzai. president obama said last night the best way forward is to get tough on karzai but given karzai's previous record, given that two of his vice presidents are ex-warlords, does the prime minister not think that it'd be better to have a strategy working around president karzai relying -- relying on local and regional and political leadership instead? >> mr. speaker, president obama will be grateful for his endorsement. [laughter] >> he is absolutely right -- he is absolutely right that we have to both weaken the taliban and strengthen the afghan state. the action we are taking with troops to deal with the insurgency are important. but as he rightly recognizes, so too is building up the strength of the afghan army, its police and local

will the prime minister assure the house that the new troops going to afghanistan from nato and other countries will be joined by -- governed by cabinets -- caveats? >> he is right to expect other countries to do more. but over the last few weeks, we have been trying to persuade other nato allies, and indeed allies outside nato, to do more so. but we have to appreciate that we have to build up the afghan forces just as pakistan has got to have a more professional approach to dealing with terrorism. that is where the answer to the problems lie in both pakistan and afghanistan. we won the afghan people themselves to take more responsibility for the run affairs. >> the helicopters -- is the considering purchasing new ones? dollars in any statements on helicopters, they will be made to the house. >> mark lancaster. >> mid that will have to cover the territory army. now that he has seen the error of his ways, can he reassure the house that there will be no cuts to the territorial army budget next year? >> became clear in the last few days the value we attach the territorial army by the dec

afghanistan tonight. etion expected to announce a major new escalation of the conflict. i believe the president's apparent decision to send tens of thousands more troops to afghanistan is a mistake and i believe that because the past year has taught us that there is no military solution to afghanistan. that's why i've urged the president to change our mission and to emphasize diplomacy, economic development and humanitarian aid as the best way to stop vie -- violent extremism in afghanistan. as a californian, i'm proud to say that the california democratic party has passed a resolution that also urges president obama to change course in afghanistan. i want to recognize and i want to thank my friends at the progressive democrats of america and the state party's progressive caucus for leading the effort to pass the resolution. the resolution states that far from eradicating the taliban and other insurgencies, the presence of foreign troops has instead strengthened them, creating greater insecurity, death and impoverishment of the afghan people. the california democratic par

last week president obama announced his new afghanistan strategy. 30,000 u.s. troops will be deployed in support of this effort. secretary of state clinton stated that the number of civilians in afghanistan will triple by early next year. d.s. must be fully prepared to support and even a greater role in protecting our civilians. over the last decade, d.s.'s budget has increased almost ten fold to about $2 billion. and its direct staff has doubled. unfortunately these extra resources have not guaranteed d.s.'s readiness. in particular, i have concerns in three areas that i hope will be addressed today. first, the department, state department must address the ongoing staffing challenges. gao identified gaps that hindered d.s.s. in carrying out their duties. less than half of security offices serving in language designated positions meet their proficiency requirements. more than one-third of diplomatic security positions are filled by offices below the appropriate grade. and personnel gaps at domestic offices and at key posts overseas. i believe that d.s. should in

troops in iraq today amid the new focus on afghanistan. at a town hall meeting at the kirkuk air base, he told soldiers and airmen their mission remains critical. he also said what happened in iraq could be a model for the u.s. surge in afghanistan. >> it is going to be a tough fight particularly in the next -- in the next 12 to 18 months. frankly i think it will look a lot like the surge here in the first six or eight months. and the first six or eight months of 2007 were pretty tough here. but then i think in the longer term, it is going to get a lot better >> sreenivasan: president obama also had more to say about setting a timetable of july 2011 for starting a troop drawdown in afghanistan. he told the cbs program "60 minutes", he wants afghans to realize they are not "a permanent protectorate" of the u.s.. a u.s. drone aircraft attack apparently killed a senior al qaeda operative in pakistan this week. a number of news organizations reported the strike today. cbs news cited local pakistani media, as saying the victim was the number th

this is not something new to afghanistan. though candidly when i was in bosnia as chief of operations i had a matrix on my desk that had all the countries down the left, list of tasks across the top and an x mark that filled the box as to whether that country could do that task in a certain location. >> same thing. >> same thing in iraq. and, again, we had to, you know, so general mcchrystal's challenge as was the challenge for the commander in iraq is to understand who can do what, employ them to the fullest extent possible and then figure out how to complement what it is that they can contribute with the actions of other forces that can truly do everything everywhere. >> what do you mean by -- >> senator, i have to interrupt. >> if the general could clarify whether some means a majority or -- >> clarify it but it would mean you have three minutes more than anybody else. clarify for the record or -- >> i would be happy to do that sir, thanks. >> we can do another round. there is no problem in that. i want to be fair to every

afghanistan. what president obama and the united states will have to do with this new deployment and strategy is tothe muslim world that they're doing the right thing for the muslims of afghanistan. why? because in the greater and bigger context, what osama bin laden and al qaeda are trying to do is divide muslims from the west, from christians, from jews. and if he -- if that message and that outlook is able to gain traction beyond afghanistan, anything we do there will be worthless because al qaeda will go and set themselves up in yemen or somalia or in other places. we can chase them down there. we need to be seen by the muslims of the world to be doing the right thing in afghanistan. i'm also very cautious as well about pakistan. pakistan's commitment to what president obama wants to achieve. it's a weak government. if you look at where the al qaeda threat to the united states comes from right now, the people that have been arrested here recently, zazi, they've been to al qaeda training camps inside pakistan, not afghanistan. it's the pakistani government who are not yet committed to tackling t

last week president obama announced his new afghanistan strategy. 30,000 u.s. troops will deploy in support of this effort. secretary of state, clinton, stated the number of civilians in afghanistan will triple by early next year. ds must be fully prepared to support a greater role in protecting civilians. over the last decade ds's budget has increased almost tenfold to about $10 billion its direct hire staff has doubled. unfortunately these extra resources have not guaranteed the ds's readiness. in particular i have concerns in three areas i hope will be addressed today. first, the department state department must address ongoing staffing challenges. gao identified key work force steps that hindered ds and carrying out its duties. less than half of regional security officer is serving in language designated positions meet their proficiency requirement. more than one-third of diplomatic security positions are filled by offices below the appropriate grade. and there are personal gaps posts overseas. i believe that ds should invest more in its work force by having

ambassador to afghanistan said they now are united in supporting the new plan, despite earlier reports they disagreed on the need for more troops. ambassador karl eikenberry had expressed misgivings about a surge, in a series of leaked cables to washington. but he told the house armed services committee he now endorses the approach advocated by general stanley mcchrystal. >> i am unequivocally in support of this mission, and i am exactly aligned with general mcchrystal here to my right in moving forward now to vigorously implement the assigned mission. >> holman: the general said he, too, was confident in the president's new war plan, including the provision to start withdrawing in 18 months. but he also suggested it could take longer. >> results may come more quickly, and we may demonstrate progress towards measurable objectives, but the sober fact is that there are no silver bullets. ultimate success will be the cumulative effect of sustained pressure across multiple lines of operation. >> holman: in response, republicans renewed their skepticism. "buck" mckeon of california asked if

will the prime minister assure the house that the new troops going to afghanistan from nato and other countries will be joined by -- governed by cabinets -- caveats? >> he is right to expect other countries to do more. but over the last few weeks, we have been trying to persuade other nato allies, and indeed allies outside nato, to do more so. but we have to appreciate that we have to build up the afghan forces just as pakistan has got to have a more professional approach to dealing with terrorism. that is where the answer to the problems lie in both pakistan and afghanistan. we won the afghan people themselves to take more responsibility for the run affairs. >> the helicopters -- is the considering purchasing new ones? dollars in any statements on helicopters, they will be made to the house. >> mark lancaster. >> mid that will have to cover the territory army. now that he has seen the error of his ways, can he reassure the house that there will be no cuts to the territorial army budget next year? >> became clear in the last few days the value we attach the territorial army by the dec

forces securing bop legislation and others retaining and partnering with the afghanistan forc forces. also reporting from "newican commanders in afghanistan relying on the commando units to carry out some of the most complicated operations against militant leaders and the mission although never publicly a.c.c. tphob-- ny acknowledging the efforts. what is going on? guest: there are different levels. there is the summer of 30,000 combat troops. there is the civilian surge. and there is the aid to pakistan. now,ç this expansion of the commando element is partç of t military side. what the commandos are doing, in conjunction with predator drone attacks on the board, is trying to target al qaeda and taliban leaders inside of pakistan. theseñr are cross-border raids into pakistan territory. these are very sensitive affairs because theç pakistanies don't want it known the united states is operating inside their territory. the united states is very unpopular inside pakistan and anyç knowledge of (1ó(u among pakistani people would backfire on the pakistani government. and within pakistan you have people within th

afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. going forward, i am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. our new approach in afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and i'll work closely with congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. but as we end the war in iraq and transition to afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. it pays for our military. it underwrites our diplomacy. it taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. that's why our troop commitment in afghanistan cannot be open- ended -- because the nation that i'm most interested in building is our own. now, let me be clear. none of this will be easy. the struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond afghanistan and pakistan. it will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. and unlike the great power conf

effort to one augmented by the new nato training mission in afghanistan, and its new commander, lieutenantgeneral bill caldwell, is setting conditions to accelerate the critically important expansion and improvement of afghan security forces. u.s. combat forces will actively assist in the development of afghan security forces by training and partnering directly with afghan units at all levels. the concept that has been effective in iraq, but that was only recently implemented in afghanistan. furthermore, we're now working not just to secure the afghan population, but also to mobilize and enable local citizens. engaging them in community defense initiatives so they can help defend themselves against extremist elements trying to establish control in various areas. we have also worked to improve coordination between the military and all other agencies of government. wearing his u.s. hat, general mcchrystal worked with ambassador eikenberry in the u.s. embassy in developing a u.s. civil military campaign plan. further, we have established a joint task. detain the operations and afghan threat f

afghanistan. i believe that you're right. that the president's new strategy coupled with increase in troops and civilian experts in the sense of urgency provided by the july 2011 target for transition presents our best chance for success. and remember, this committee will have questions about how it can be accomplished. what does success in afghanistan look like? what do we believe must be accomplished in the next 18 months? what risk are we accepting in the next 18 months? how will we convince the pakistanis their interests lie with us? how will we measure progress over time? and how will we help the afghan people build a legitimate government that can end the insurgency? while i do have questions about implementation, i do not have any doubt that we must succeed in afghanistan, that the president is ranked to order the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops on top of the troops already approved. and that the new strategy provides a good path for success. i hope our witnesses today can help us fill in the details of how the difficult but achievab

operating in areas like afghanistan and iraq requires we adopt new ways of thinking about risk.our foreign service officers are not soldiers but our nation's need for informed judgment on complicated economic and political subjects doesn't end when risk arises. you cannot coordinate effectively over the telephone with foreigners that work on face-to-face and personal relationships. we are hampered not only by issues of numbers of vehicles and shortages of rsos but by our self-imposed standards often described as zero tolerance. we have avoided the problem in the field by turning over the security to the military so that our people are moving on different standards than those which we would use if they were secured by rsos. but as the military withdraws from iraq and we are on our own or we establish branch posts we are going to face increased problems. i want to be clear. i do not advocate that we assume high levels of risk for civil n civilians and i would be opposed to ordering officers to take risks they deem unreasonable. but we must find better answers than we have to date.

effort to one augmented by the new nato training mission in afghanistan, and its new commander, lieutenanteneral bill caldwell, is setting conditions to accelerate the critically important expansion and improvement of afghan security forces. u.s. combat forces will actively assist in the development of afghan security forces by training and partnering directly with afghan units at all levels. the concept that has been effective in iraq, but that was only recently implemented in afghanistan. furthermore, we're now working not just to secure the afghan population, but also to mobilize and enable local citizens. engaging them in community defense initiatives so they can help defend themselves against extremist elements trying to establish control in various areas. we have also worked to improve coordination between the military and all other agencies of government. wearing his u.s. hat, general mcchrystal worked with ambassador eikenberry in the u.s. embassy in developing a u.s. civil military campaign plan. further, we have established a joint task. detain the operations and afghan threat fi

i agreed with president karzai that this conference will deliver a new compact between afghanistan and the international community based on priorities that he has outlined. first, security, we expect nations to announce troop deployment building on the total of 140,000 troops promised in 2010. and i hope the london conference will also be able to set out the next stage in a longer-term plan, the balance between alliance forces and afghan forces changing as their armed forces rise from 90000 afghan army and defense forces, to 135,000 next year, possibly 175,000 later. and of course, on the future numbers, also of the police intelligence services and local security initiatives in afghanistan. secondly, in london nato and isaf partners must set out a program for the transfer of lead responsibly from coalition to afghan forces and agreed a set of conditions and criteria to astonish the eligibility of provinces and districts for transfer. and i hope we can agree in london that the process begins subject to conditions on the ground during 2010. third, on reintegration, london must secure int

new eui rep. in the latter meeting, they talked about afghanistan, like all of the meetings. they also had a chance to talk about the very important meetings next week related to the eu. it'll be the first meeting of foreign ministers for the new eu high rep, lady ashton. and in addition to the european council meeting, which of course was the summit meeting. and as i said, they discussed afghanistan. but they also discussed iran. because we expect that the iranian issue will be addressed in the eu council meeting. and there will be a brood discussion on next steps in that meeting. i also have an announcement regarding travel of undersecretary bill burns. he will travel to beijing december 8 and the 9. he will then travel to indonesia on december 10th and 11th, for consults with senior indonesian officials on expanding cooperation on areas of mutual interest as discussed during president obama's recent meeting the indonesia president. he will also lead the u.s. observer democracy forum, which is an important indonesian led initiative to promote reform throughout the region. an

afghanistan have enough equipment, particularly helicopters. the defense secretary came to the commons in december to announce a package of cuts to five million pounds of new equipment for afghanistan. >> we will reduce the size of the hairier force. and consolidate the area force. >> but the money saved would allow for spending elsewhere. >> and there will be 22 new chinook helicopters with the first 10 arriving during 2012-2013. a lot more chinooks will be welcome. we have to accept this will be 2013 before we get them. it will be 12 years since we went to afghanistan at that point. doesn't it now indicate the sheer stupidity of the government's decision to cut the helicopter budget 1.4 billion in 2004? >> how many will arrive in 2013 and when will the others get there and how does this fit with president obama's plan of withdrawal starting in 2011? should this not have been take an good deal earlier? >> while the deployment of the 22 chinooks into afghanistan, many of us believe they should have been ordered many months ago. does he understand that that mission was culpable and negligent and as a consequence, men have died needlessly? >> as i have said

afghanistan approached $1 trillion. going forward, i am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. our new approach in afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year. i will work closely with congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. but as we end the war in iraq in transition to afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. it pays for our military. it underwrites our diplomacy. it taxes the potential of our people and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. that is why our troop commitment in afghanistan cannot be open- ended. because the nation i am most interested in building is our own. let me be clear, none of this will be easy. the struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly and extends well beyond afghanistan and pakistan. it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. and unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that define the 20th ce

the new mrap, the m-atv was put on hold by u.s. forces afghanistanbecause of some mechanical issues that they are having that made it a little dangerous. one of the issues were not applicable to our marines, because we did not buy the gunner's cap. i was up 400-pound piece that tended to float around in an explosive. it could be very dangerous. but we did not buy that. the other thing had to do with fire suppression. our people on deck and fix that. today we have 83 mrap's and more to follow, that are working out in afghanistan. our preferred vehicle is one that we have sort of created, if you will, which is the cat 1 mrap from afghanistan, the cougar, that we've put a seven- ton suspension on. a seven-ton was a very popular vehicle with our marines, because it get off road and go any place. instead of buying more mrap's that one day we will not need as a marine corps, we said, let's take a look at those we've got. can we do something with this suspension system that comes off the mtvr to make to be able to go everywhere and do anything? and we have.

forces securing bop legislation and others retaining and partnering with the afghanistan forc forces. also reporting from "newost complicated operations against militant leaders and the mission although never publicly a.c.c. tphob-- ny acknowledging the efforts. what is going on? guest: there are different levels. there is the summer of 30,000 combat troops. there is the civilian surge. and there is the aid to pakistan. now,ç this expansion of the commando element is partç of t military side. what the commandos are doing, in conjunction with predator drone attacks on the board, is trying to target al qaeda and taliban leaders inside of pakistan. theseñr are cross-border raids into pakistan territory. these are very sensitive affairs because theç pakistanies don't want it known the united states is operating inside their territory. the united states is very unpopular inside pakistan and anyç knowledge of (1ó(u among pakistani people would backfire on the pakistani government. and within pakistan you have people within the military and security services particularly the intelligence service, who don't like

but i think moving troops to afghanistan is the best pro peace gesture so far. and they could use it for newttacks on the rest of the world inning the united states, it would be a dangerous anti-peace thing to do. i think prying to bring stability to afghanistan and not letting it by a haven frn terrorists is a good act and i think is his finest hour. >> larry: you never know what ben is going to say. tanya? >> here is one thing we know the president did do. we changed american foreign policy from being a cowboys and indians video game to being now instead focused on diplomacy and moving to longer interesting. he did do that. whether or not this is ironic, yeah there is irony to it. and the fact that he stands for peace and the fact that you have to sometimes stand for conflict doesn't mean that he is anti-peace. i guess it's not that paradox cal. >> stephanie, wasn't it a little early? >> there is a chance to kanye west will int ruptd him and try to take it away. i'm an american tonight and i'm proud that my president is getting the nobel peace prize. i don't know if the afghanistan strateg

ironically the name of the bush administration's iraq surge, the new way forward was somehow endorsed by the obama administration, the afghanistan surge a new way forward. there's enormous differences. afghanistan you have a rural insurgency. you don't have a central government. you have the pakistan issue. it's a very poor country. and i think that makes the afghan situation a really much more complicated and problematic. so really to open up the discussion, i would like to ask ambassador holbrooke, you know, we know we're in the -- the president said we're in this fight because of al-qaeda. and in order to take on al-qaeda, it's important to stabilize afghanistan and in order to stabilize afghanistan, we're sending 30,000 troops. how does the effort you're coordinating, the civilian side of the equation contribute to this and how is it supposed to work in concert with the military effort? >> michael, thank you, first of all for hosting this and thank so many old friends in the room for coming today. you all know that afghanistan is entering its ninth year of the war. and the question that asked most often particularly by peopl

news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. hari? >> sreenivasan: the chairman of the u.s. joint chiefs journeyed to the front lines in afghanistan today. in the kandahar region, he urged tribal leaders to help clean up corruption. he also told american troops it's urgent to control the area. meanwhile, "the new york times" reported a former top u.n. official in afghanistan pressed to remove president hamid karzai. the report said american peter galbraith floated the plan when the presidential election was embroiled in fraud. he was later dismissed from his job. president obama will face new pressure in his own party over sending more troops to afghanistan. the house could vote next month on a resolution to end the conflict. and speaker nancy pelosi said last night she won't round up votes to defeat it. she said, "the president is going to have to make his case." republicans said today they still support the surge. in pakistan, intelligence officials said missile attacks by u.s. drone aircraft killed at least 17 people today, near the afghan border. they said some of the victims appeared to be foreign fighters. the u.s. has carri

i agreed with president karzai that this conference will deliver a new compact between afghanistan and international community based on priorities that he has outlined. first, security, we expect nations to announce troop deployment building on the total of 140,000 troops promised in 2010. and i hope the london conference will also be able to set out the next stage in a longer-term plan, the balance between alliance forces and afghan forces changing as their armed forces rise from 90000 afghan army and defense forces, to 135,000 next year, possibly 175,000 later. and of course, on the future numbers, also of the police intelligence services and local security initiatives in afghanistan. secondly, in london nato and isaf partners must set out a program for the transfer of lead responsibly from coalition to afghan forces and agreed a set of conditions and criteria to astonish the eligibility of provinces and districts for transfer. and i hope we can agree in london that the process begins subject to conditions on the ground during 2010. third, on reintegration, london must secure interna

with afghanistan coming a journalist friend of mine to reports for a tv station and canada called the real news. he calls afghanistan and pakistan and the southeastern theater he calls it a pipeistan. is all about the pipeline is going from the caspian sea down where are the four bases? their right down the line of the proposed pipeline route from with the oil and natural gas from the caspian sea down to the coast. >> i served in six years with the marine corps between 1975 and 1981. i am a muslim. i would like you to discuss two issues because they have been horribly lied about in the american media. this probably goes more toward your first book but like you to discuss the precipitating factors of fallujah which resulted in the black water mercenaries come i figure they deserve whatever happens to them. but if you talk about the specifics of the initial o occupation of fallujah that talks about them getting what they deserved and also discuss in some detail what really happened at abu ghraib as opposed to it was more than people wearing victoria's secret head gear. if you can discuss the spec

afghanistan. the senator of missouri chair subcontracting oversight subcommittee of homeland security. the new -- contractors could be heading into afghanistan. this hearing is just beginning. live on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i kept coming back to contract in, because the auditor in me was surprised at some of the things i began learning about contracting in iraq. so i went to iraq. and the purpose of my trip was not to do what many senators do when they go to iraq, which is to look at the conflict through the present -- the prism of the military mission, i went specifically to oversee contract in and what was going on with contrasting. i spent more time in kuwait, which would surprise some of you, then i spent in theater. and i had many different things that happened on that trip that are seared into my hard drive. realizations about the lack of coordination and integration between various pots of money. amazing lapses in scoping contracts and making contracts definite enough they could be in fo

other storie overo hari sreenivasan inur newsroom. >> sreenivan: the president faced new questions today abt aving afghanistane told reporters in oo he's stking to his plan to start u.s. troop withdrawa in july of 21. but he promised the pull-out will be adual. >> i think it's very impornt to understand that we' not going to see se sharp cliff, some precipitous drawdn. our ole concept here is to train and partner with afghan forces a to transfer to them en as our troops are fightin alongside each oth. sreenivasan: meanwhile, general mcchrsal the u.s. commander in afanistan, played dn concerns about the timetable. he td a house hearing that insurgents wl see the u.s. coitment and realize: "a date doesn't change anything". defense secretary gatehas arrived in iq from afghanistan. he met today wh iraqi president jalal tabani to ofr u.s. help, after the ghdad bombings on tuesday. the attacks killed 127eople. today, thembrella group for al qaeda in iraq claimed reonsibility. and warned: "the list of rgets has no end." a week-long wint storm left much of thmidwest and nortast in a deep freeze today. at lea 17 death

they did an excellent job in making the administration's case for the new strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. today we welcome the top american officials on the ground in afghanistan. ambassador carl w.ikanberry and general stanley a. mcchrystal, the commander of all united states and international forces in afghanistan. the president and his team have made it very clear that our efforts to degrade the taliban and defeat al qaeda cannot stop at the durand line. indeed, nearly all of the jihadi groups operating in pakistan and afghanistan, al qaeda, the pakistani taliban, the afghan taliban, the akani network, l.e.t. and others have joined together in an extended terrorist network that shares the same goals, including destabilizing afghanistan and destroying the pakistani state. fortunately, there appears to be a growing recognition in pakistan that it is impossible to differentiate between different terrorist groups. and that the same people killing american, international and afghan troops are now arming suicide bombers in the streets and markets of pakistan and killing pakistani c

this conference will allow for any contact between afghanistan and the international community -- deliver a newntract to treat afghanistan and the international community. we expect nations to announced troop deployments build a of the total of 130,000 troops, it 20,000 -- promised for 2010. the balance between alliance forces and afghan forces changing as there are forces rise from 90,000 afghan army and defense forces to 135,000 next year, possibly 175,000 later, and on the future numbers, police intelligence services and local security initiatives in afghanistan. inondly, in london, afghanistan. secondly, in london nato and isaf partners must set out a program for the transfer of lead responsibly from coalition to afghan forces and agreed a set of conditions and criteria to astonish the eligibility of provinces and districts for transfer. and i hope we can agree in london that the process begins subject to conditions on the ground during 2010. third, on reintegration, london must secure international support and financial backing for afghan led resettlement and reintegration programs. forth,

all told, up by the time i took office, the cost of the wars in iraq and afghanistan approached 1 millio$1 trillion. our new approach in afghanistan is likely to cost $30 billion for the military this year. i will work closely with congress to address these cost. host: in this morning's "daily news" -- host: james in maryland, you support the president yes, . caller: yes, i do. finally we have a president and almost one decade who is taking his time. i'm so proud. finally. [inaudible] finally in ne know. host: donald in dallas opposes the president's proposal. why is that? caller: we should not be over there at all. the whole premise for everything that we have been talking about for the last however long was not done -- 9/11 was a giant conspiracy. we paid the taliban $40 million shortly before that because they were good at eradicating the poppy fields. the gentleman yesterday said they are taking their money to fund of the war from the poppy fields. how could that possibly be if we were paying the money before their friends attacked us? it is ridiculous. i would also like to say, the hemp plant also like

they did an excellent job in making the case for the new strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. we welcome the top american officials on the ground today in afghanistan. on the ground in afghanistan. ambassador carl w.ikanberry and general stanley a. mcchrystal, the commander of all united states and international forces in afghanistan. the president and his team have made it very clear that our efforts to degrade the taliban and defeat al qaeda cannot stop at the durand line. indeed, nearly all of the jihadi groups operating in pakistan and afghanistan, al qaeda, the pakistani taliban, the afghan taliban, the akani network, l.e.t. and others have joined together in an extended terrorist network that shares the same goals, including destabilizing afghanistan and destroying the pakistani state. fortunately, there appears to be a growing recognition in pakistan that it is impossible to differentiate between different terrorist groups. and that the same people killing american, international and afghan troops are now arming suicide bombers in the streets and markets of pakistan and

afghanistan. that's the conflict. what are some the repercussions of that? one i haven't heard in the news. maybe you have. the land mine problem is extraordinary in afghanistan. there are estimated seven to ten million land mines in afghanistan. they have a phenomenon there that i've never heard of it, mine migration. mine migration is when the spring snow melts and the dry gullies fill up, the land mines that they lifed one season, move around. they wind up in other places. even today, even though we are not hearing about it, it continues to be a tremendous problem. if you are wondering if anybody is ever wondering whether there's anything at all, i find it hard to believe that there is. one the things that the taliban did with their land mines, they disguised them as toys. so the land mine problem continues to be a huge one. the other thing that obviously is getting a lot of press is the poppy and opium production that's going on there. when then leads to the government corruption. there's a very low life expectancy. very high infant mortality rate. i'm going to read a bit from the book at this point. wh

afghanistan? you mentioned girls going back to school. not something we're doing other than security gains. >> a lot of focus has been made of the military part of the new strategy, the number of the troupe, drawdown, update. this is a comprehensive approach on insuring long-term partnership between afghanistan and the united states. you mentioned creating jobs and hope and opportunity as the most sustainable way of fighting in stabilizing afghanistan. we have been seeking a long-term partnership with the united states. this is the best hope the afghan people have. this is a lot more today, a willingness to focus on the area of enhancing this kind of relationship. the number of exchanges is increasing. students more -- more students coming year. more people-to-people exchanges. it enhances mutual understanding. these are under way. i hope that the economic crisis and the difficulties in this country will allow the united states to further deliver on promises that are being made on the new strategy. we're asking also of the support of the u.s. congress overall, not just to focus on the military expansion. >> i have one more question. we defeated the tali

rural country like afghanistan. >> host: i think greg, one of the things after knowing you all these years and reading three cups of tea and now -- full confession -- half of the new book is that you have to be a very patient person to do the work that you're doing in pakistan and afghanistan yet in america we're not so patient, and i think we expect to see results a lot sooner than we do, i think we get impatient we get angry. can you talk about the patience that it's taking, and can we do enough of what you're trying to accomplish quickly enough? you know, if afghanistan is on the front burner today and i'm hearing from colleagues of mine who were there over the weekend say it's just ungovernable and it's a mess. can can you accomplish what you're trying to do in a time frame that the american people are happy with and also bring meaningful change to afghanistan? >> guest: as you mentioned it's a paradigm because in the u.s. we're used to two-minute football drills and six-second sound bytes i know you have to go and vote here in a minute, and halfway around the world things are measured in terms of not only fiscal years but in generations. i also feel having me

afghanistan on capitol hill, tough questions for hillary clinton and others. tonight, my interview with general david petraeus on the strategy, whether it's really nation building and what the newails. many of the troops heading to afghanistan will be sent to kandahar province. we'll show you what like is like in the war zone. new details about the man accused of killing four cops. warning signs missed in washington state and arkansas. why was this man out on the streets? why was he out on bail? at one point, mike huckabee gave him clemency. those stores and more tonight on "360." >> larry: that's at 10:00 eastern, 7:00 pacific with anderson cooper. david cornwell, what do you make of donnie's comments that it makes him like every man? >> i disagree. there are really three audiences here that tiger has to deal with. one is the personal, his family and friends and people that are part of his personal life and he's let some down and they're going to side with his wife and others will support him. the other are his sponsors. i don't think they're issuing these statements because they don't think there's a problem with adultery, but there's no basis to terminate the agreement. and

afghanistan. the president was sworn in in january. he issued a new set of documents for the war in afghanistan. they fired the general in charge. they hired a general mcchrystal. the general says he needs more troops. the president is responding to everything he said during the campaign. the new general rehired, the new plan, and he is doing it in a sense of protecting americans from what we know happens here, and maybe a lot of things that i cannot tell you because they are classified, but there is terrorist activity in the united states. what goes on in other countries has to do with the protection of americans. the number one obligation of the federal government is our national security. the state governments, the local governments, do not protect you from foreign intervention. only the federal government does that. the number one responsibility of the federal government is to make sure that all of you folks and all 306 million americans are protected. if the president does not do that, and he stated during the campaign that afghanistan was something to be concerned about -- he would not be d

news of the day. here's hari sreenivan in our newsroom. ri? >> sreenivas: the chairman of the u.s. joint chiefjourneyed to the front lin in afghanistan toy. in the kandahar region, he ued tribal leaderso help clean up corruption. he also told american troo it's urgent to conol the area. meanile, "the new york times" reported a formetop u.n. oicial in afghanistan pressed to reme president hamid karzai. the report said erican peter galbith floated the plan when t presidential election was embroiled in fraud he was ler dismissed from his job. president ama will face new pressuren his own party over seing more troops to afghanisn. the houscould vote next month on a resolution to end the colict. and spker nancy pelosi said last night she won't rou up votes to defeait. she said, "the president i going to havto make his case." republicans saidoday they still support e surge. in pakistan, intellince officials sa missile attacks by u.s. drone aircra killed at least 17 people today,ear the afghan border. they said somef the victims appeared to foreign fighters. the u.s. has cried out more than 40 drone atcks this year inside pakistan. u.s. officia t

alley. >> it would be news to me. >> i want to applaud you and the president and everyone who has been involved in a very thorough review of what our strategy should be in afghanistan. new hampshire this week is sending another 140 national guard members over to afghanistan and is you pointed out secretary clinton these are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters and we'll them and all of the men and women serving their a mission that they can understand and support and i think it is appropriate also that we continue to have a rigorous debate in congress and in the senate about what we are going to do so thank you all for that. there have been a number of mentions of those the importance and the potential for reconciling certain taliban elements in the importance of that to the success of what happens in afghanistan. have any of those overtures begun and two do you see is going to do those kinds of negotiations? how do we envision that happening? >> first of all we have tried to in our discussions differentiate between reconciliation and reintegration. it may seem like a semantic point, but we consider reconciliation to be what the opportunities are there with tali

doesn't have too many choices, but the problem in afghanistan, the problem is in pakistan and what to do at that. >> thank you. more reaction. we covered a news a number of so-called progressive democrats opposing the war in afghanistan. one of those in attendance, senator russ feingold was issued a statement. he said i do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight the war in afghanistan. that is no longer in our national security interests. he went on to say it is an expensive gamble, says senator feingold, 200 undertake it under a corrupt government. sending more troops could further destabilize afghanistan and more importantly pakistan says senator feingold, a nuclear armed state where al qaeda is headquartered. canada is joining us from detroit. your reaction to the speech tonight. >> yeah, i'm a veteran. i just think that cnn and nbc and c-span and all these people, why was the president of the united states of america go on national tv which is broadcast in afghanistan and in the salome style of a community and give up his secret and his worst strategy. nobody ever did this after world war i and world war ii

>> the commission on wartime crowd debiting >> now a hearing on contacting the oversight in afghanistan. a new congressional study says 56,000 contractors could be headed to afghanistan as the president's troop surge begins. meanwhile i house committees investigating allegations that contractors have been paying off warlords and the taliban to avoid attacks on convoys. this is bill's than two ours. >> thank you all very much for being here. this hearing will come to order. i have a great opening statement that an incredibly competent and conscientious that has helped me with but i think instead of delivering it i think that will make it part of the record. i think i will tell a story. i, fresh out of auditing in the state of missouri, having run a government auditing agent for a number of years, came to the united states senate and was honored to get a seat on the armed services committee. so, as i began to learn about the conflict in iraq, i kept coming back to contrasting, because the auditor in me was surprised at some of the things i began learning about contracting in iraq, so i went to i