general paxton i appreciate that. secretary flournoy, i was listening to your statement in defining the mission as it exists now under this administration and i think at one point in time you said it's about keeping al qaeda out of afghanistan and then you qualified that further in terms of al qaeda and associates. what is the and state? is the in the state potentially since you did mention the taliban is a coalition government that would incorporate the town of panora elements of teleflex taliban? >> i think the key from our interest perspective is to deny any safe haven for al qaeda and its associates. i think in any situation a point strategy and military dimension takes you so far and at some point there is a political set of comes reached. we saw this in iraq. i think that we are the -- we are working with the afghan government to try to get a better understanding of the process that they will ultimately lead on both of the reintegration of reconciliation. it's important set up criteria for who will get free inte

chairman, secretary for knight and general paxton. thank you for being here and providing your thoughts on security and stability of afghanistan. a few days ago it was announced that the united united states we sending an additional 850 soldiers and marines to train local security forces in afghanistan from approximately 90 to 120 days. these trainers are seen as a stopgap yet there is still a charge of plans conducting this critical mission. the way out of afghanistan is to have capable local security forces. what is needed to fill this critical shortage of trainers? i think this is one of the big problems that we have. and how are our allies filling these critical shortages, and how will the choice of trainers affect the handover to local forces? maybe you can enlighten us a little bit on that. >> i think the institutional trainers for the afghan national security forces, and then having mentoring teams, what we call omelettes out in the field to continue that training and leadership development as they actually operate. that really

chairman, secretary for knight and general paxton. thank you for being here and providing your thoughts on security and stability of afghanistan. a few days ago it was announced that the united united states we sending an additional 850 soldiers and marines to train local security forces in afghanistan from approximately 90 to 120 days. these trainers are seen as a stopgap yet there is still a charge of plans conducting this critical mission. the way out of afghanistan is to have capable local security forces. what is needed to fill this critical shortage of trainers? i think this is one of the big problems that we have. and how are our allies filling these critical shortages, and how will the choice of trainers affect the handover to local forces? maybe you can enlighten us a little bit on that. >> i think the institutional trainers for the afghan national security forces, and then having mentoring teams, what we call omelettes out in the field to continue that training and leadership development as they actually operate. that really

i will leave the specifics of that to the licht congenital paxton but i do want to note for isaf and the person the operation was the first large-scale effort to fundamentally change how we are doing business together. and helmand protecting population has been the top priority along with ensuring the military operations pave the way for afghan led governments and if element activities. preparation for the helmand operation included extraordinary levels of civil military planning and engagement with afghan partners at every level and we feel the collaborative operational planning process was critical to getting afghans a sense of ownership and investment in the success of our joint efforts. i don't want to suggest achieving success in afghanistan will be simple or easy. far from it to get kandahar for example will present challenges are fundamentally different from those that we have recently encountered and helmand. inevitably, we will face challenges, possibly setbacks' even as we achieve success. we need to recognize things might get harder before they get better. we are challengi

. >> thank you, general paxton. i appreciate that. secretary flournoy, you were -- i was listing to your statement in defining the nation as it exists now and this administration. and i think at one point in time you said it's about keeping al qaeda out of afghanistan. and then you qualified that further in terms of al qaeda and their associates. what is the in state? is the end state potentially, said she didn't mention the taliban, is a coalition government that would incorporate the taliban or elements of the taliban? >> i think that the key from our interest, perspectives is to deny any safe haven for al qaeda and its associates. i think that in any situation, a point in strategy, the military commission take you so far. and at some point there is a political set of outcomes that are reached. we saw this in iraq. i think we are -- the afghan -- were working with the afghan government to try to get a better understanding of the processes they will ultimately lead on both reintegration and reconciliation. i think it's very important