the united states tried to broker a diplomatic settlement to the fighting, and it dispatched richard holbrooke, a top dip diplomat with experiee dealing with the fall can problem, to try and impose a settlement. and in october the holbrook agreement, as it was known, was announced. the serbs agreed to withdraw most of their offensive forces from kosovo and establish a cease-fire. they also agreed to allow a peace-keeping force in the organization for security and cooperation of europe to observe the cease fire. this was an asymmetrical agreement because it imposed no requirements at all on the kla, only on the serbs. milosevic accepted it, nonetheless. the monitors were deployed, and the cease fire was declared. now, it was widely claimed after the 1999 nato bombing attack that it was the serbs who violated the agreement and led to the breakdown of the agreement on the upsurge in fighting. and that's what caused the upsurge in fighting that led to the nato attack. we now know that that's false. that, in fact, it was not the serbs, it was the kla, and we have it from the very best sources. one

the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, richard holbrooke, talks about u.s.policy in afghanistan. the senate continues work on a health-care bill and here is how you can follow the debate. watch, lied, gavel-to-gavel, and edited and commercial free only on c-span2. listen to the highlights on c- span radio. reviewed the debate on our health care hub, with light streaming video from our senate floor. briefing from leadership, and the latest from reporters and editors of cq. followed this with the new iphone app, and with it, you can listen to c-span, c-span,2 and c-span radio. >> c-span, christmas day, eric

. >> special representative for afghanistan and pakistan richard holbrooke talking about the so- called civilian surge in the u.s. policies toward afghanistan at an event hosted by the council on foreign relations. this is about an hour. council of foreign relations meeting this evening, and this is an interesting event because we not only have the audience here, but we have the council of foreign relations members participating from around the nation. it is also being televised on c- span. it is a multi dimensional even with lots of participants. as you know, many of these events are done off the record. this is done on the record, with ambassador holbrooke, and i am going to say a few words about him and also point out an interesting feature about this event. i think he is well known to this community. i first encountered him when i was a somewhat younger person and he was the youngest assistant secretary of state' fr asian affairs, and he went on. he was a key architect of the talks that helped end the fighting in bosnia, which was a major contribution of stability in that area. he@

for this and more gifts, visit c-span.org/store. >> now richard holbrooke. to achieve military correspondent for "the new york times" moderate this discussion about u.s. strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. from the council on foreign relations, this is an hour. >> i would like to welcome you to the council of foreign relations meeting this evening, and this is an interesting event because we not only have the audience here, but we have the council of foreign relations members participating from around the nation. it is also being televised on c- span. it is a multi dimensional even with lots of participants. as you know, many of these events are done off the record. this is done on the record, with ambassador holbrooke, and i am going to say a few words about him and also point out an interesting feature about this event. i think he is well known to this community. i first encountered him when i was a somewhat younger person and he was the youngest assistant secretary of state' fr asian affairs, and he went on. he was a key architect of the talks that help

it also says that the administration sent richard holbrooke to brussels on tuesday to begin briefing nato allies on policy. stanley mcchrystal will also be briefing allies in his capacity. chris, independent line -- capacity." chris, independent line. what are your thoughts? chris, i am going to put you on hold until you turn your television down. monica, republican line. caller: good morning. merry christmas. host: what are your thoughts this morning? caller: the institution of war that has been declared in the middle east is a clutch. the country, at the time, voted? i do not think we should pullout until we have done our job. the president said that he was going to support the troops. i think that he is doing the right things. you have to support the troops. you cannot make a move over there without listening to the chiefs on the ground. i feel that the president has to use more troops if he says so. we do not always like the fact that men and women are dying, but if you look at it realistically, 4.5000 people have died in conflicts over there. we saw just about that many in a few

i met with richard holbrook and his team. i was impressed.e was saying people are complaining because we're not bringing on people fast enough and we're trying to get the best people. i was impressed with that. but if you were in our shoes, how would you go about making sure that the plan in terms of iraq has been well thought out in terms of human capital, security and other things. a critical path in terms of the things we need to do and to get an idea of how long we'll be in iraq because we're not talking about that. it's the same thing i mentioned earlier, in terms of afghanistan. i mean, to my knowledge, nobody's talked about the commitment that we're going to make towards nationbuilding. anybody that knows what's going on has to understand that's as important or more important than the military side, but very little attention has been paid to that. how do we get a guarantee that, in fact, holbrook's got it figured out, the state department's got it figured out how many people, how long, where they are going to be and all the other detai

i met with richard holbrook and his team. i was impressed. he was saying people are complaining because we're not bringing on people fast enough and we're trying to get the best people. i was impressed with that. but if you were in our shoes, how would you go about making sure that the plan in terms of iraq has been well thought out in terms of human capital, security and other things. a critical path in terms of the things we need to do and to get an idea of how long we'll be in iraq because we're not talking about that. it's the same thing i mentioned earlier, in terms of afghanistan. i mean, to my knowledge, nobody's talked about the commitment that we're going to make towards nationbuilding. anybody that knows what's going on has to understand that's as important or more important than the military side, but very little attention has been paid to that. how do we get a guarantee that, in fact, holbrook's got it figured out, the state department's got it figured out how many people, how long, where they are going to be and all the other det

richard holbrooke has a whole team of people that he would call rebuilding a nation because he certainly goes back in history to the times when afghanistan was more of a functioning country. but my point is there is no question the metrics laid out in september were nation-building. i met with secure ann gates greatly respect the pentagon and we talked about a partial nation-building and now we talk about coming home in 18 months with our troops. i realize civilians will stay after that point in time and i realize the coming home part based on the testimony yesterday was just a throwaway comment to sort of a people concerned about the buildup. so to me it's really not clear, and i'd think that the american people who are going to be the civilian side in particular is going to be for decades the whole budget of afghanistan today is about $890 million, the 400,000 security troops we are talking about art about 10 billion a year and i'm wondering, madam secretary, whether it would make sense to really lay out clearly what all of this means from the standpoint of support for the next several

h >> now richard holbrooke with representative for afghanistan and pakistan. the moderator is michael gordon. chief military correspondent for "the new york times." from the council on foreign relations, this is an hour. >> okay. well, i would like to welcome you to the council and foreign relations meeting this evening, and this is an interesting event because we not only had the audience here, but we have our council formulations

it also says that the administration sent richard holbrooke to brussels on tuesday to begin briefing nato allies on policy. stanley mcchrystal will also be briefing allies in his capacity. chris, independent line -- capacity." chris, independent line. what are your thoughts? chris, i am going to put you on hold until you turn your television down. monica, republican line. caller: good morning. merry christmas. host: what are your thoughts this morning? caller: the institution of war that has been declared in the middle east is a clutch. the country, at the time, voted? i do not think we should pullout until we have done our job. the president said that he was going to support the troops. i think that he is doing the right things. you have to support the troops. you cannot make a move over there without listening to the chiefs on the ground. i feel that the president has to use more troops if he says so. we do not always like the fact that men and women are dying, but if you look at it realistically, 4.5000 people have died in conflicts over there. we saw just about that many in a few

richard holbrooke as a whole team of people that would call it a rebuilding a nation because he goesck in history to the times when afghanistan was more of a functioning country, but my point is there's no question that the metrics laid out in september were nation-building. i met with secretary gates, who might respect, at the pentagon, and we talked about a partial nation-building, and now, we talk about coming home in 18 months with our troops -- i realize civilians will stay at that point in time, and i realize the coming home part based on testimony yesterday was really just throw it, to sort of a peace people -- throwaway comment to sort of a people who are nervous about the buildup. to me, it is not clear, and i think the american people, -- the civilian side in particular is going to be for decades -- the whole budget in a guinness and today is about $90 million. security troops we're talking about are about $10 billion a year. i wonder whether it would make sense to really lay of clearly what all of this means, that from the standpoint of support for the next several decades

richard holbrooke and his partnership with david petraeus , there is a full effort being made. when you talk about them, at the embassy and our embassy in kabul, that we do work together under ambassador holbrooke's direction. there is political dialogue and we try to encourage. more promising in the arab economic cooperation, trying to help both sides to reach a transit trade agreement. working with both sides to help improve customer posts along the frontier. some of those projects have lead to positive results. there is not going to be any real significant breakthroughs in there. we do have a comprehensive approach. thank you. thank you both for your service. >> thank you. thank you very much. i wanted to say welcome. i want to thank you each for your dedicated services to our country. i also want to thank all the men and women under your leadership for their sacrifices as we discussed afghanistan policy today. i asked that to keep our military civilians in mind and also in their careers as they stand there. >> much has been said and written about the problems with the acting

host: on your screen is vali nasr, senior adviser to richard holbrooke, the special representative tolished this morning about how to mend fences with pakistan. he writes that it is useful for americans and pakistani is to consider what has brought us to this point and what the conflicts true endgame must be. in the eyes of the administration, what is the endgame of efforts in afghanistan and pakistan? >> to bring peace and security the south asia. creating a circumstance in which afghanistan can have a normal government and its people can live under peace and security. also helping pakistan with its challenge of extremism. tell them that country to have a prosperous economy. host: as we attempt to do this i want to go back to this piece. it has some interesting observations about the challenges for both countries. "there is deep suspicion in one country toward the other. many americans still wonder if pakistan is doing all that it can to fight terrorism. some of them re believe is an absence of gratitude. considering the history as seen by pakistan, twice in recent history america ab

i spent a couple of hours over the state department with richard holbrooke, and visited with the people, the team he's putting together to go into afghanistan, and i was impressed that he's taking his time trying to make sure he gets the right people and are not in a big rush just to bring people on but to try to find the right ones. so i really would like to know just what percentages of the people that are going to be doing this ought to be on government payroll and not private contractors. are there too many that are on the private payroll? second of all, can't we do a better job of preparing this individuals that we are asking to do this job? i & that takes about three years to train somebody for one of these jobs, and the other thing i'm interested in is who decides whether or not the private contractor is doing the job you are paying them for, and i found that too often they have private sector people on and the question is does the agency know whether or not they are getting a return on the investment they are putting into that private sector so anxious to hear your testimony tod

and richard holbrooke discusses u.s. policy in afghanistan. from the white house, illinois governor pat quinn and senator durbin discuss the federal government's deal to purchase an illinois prison to house guantanamo bay detainees. >> we want to welcome everybody. we received a letter today from the secretary of state and the secretary of defense and attorney general and secretary of homeland security and the bureau of national security, indicating that thomson, illinois, is selected to be the prison in a land of lincoln to incarcerate detainee's from guantanamo bay. as well as the site of a new federal prison that will be located in western illinois. we believe in security and safety at all times. this will be the most secure prison in america. no one has ever escaped from a federal prison. the security enhancements. at the thomso -- at the presenty vacant for about eight years, will make it the most secure a maximum security prison in our country of all time. we think that is important to protect the safety of our state as well as the whole

guest: when richard holbrook came in as the special envoy to deal with all of this, india was installedthe that somehow kashmir was being thrown into this basket and made it clear that they were unhappy with that idea and that holbrooke would not be the american envoy to deal with all of these problems, especially kashmir. but i do not -- i do think there is an understanding in the u.s. government that there is a parlay in these problems and need to do with the olad and not just -- with the whole of them and not just a piece. host: next call, karen on the independent line. caller: i oppose the war in afghanistan and i also oppose the war in iraq, and i was proven right. those of us who happen opposed -- who have opposed the war in iraq have been proved dramatically right. i would ask mr. ricks, does he see that obama would never be able to tell us that we should support the war in afghanistan because of our common sense was proven so right over all of dependence and the generals on tv and the congressmen who have this -- u.f. roane $1 trillion at the warner iraq that we could use so muc

>> guest: when richard holbrooke came in as the special envoy to deal with all this, india, was insulted that somehow kashmir was being thrown into this basket and made it very clear they were unhappy with that idea and that holbrooke would not be the american envoy to deal with all these problems especially kashmir. but i do think there is an understanding in the u.s. government that these are related problems, and you need to deal with the whole of them, not just pieces of them. afghanistan in some ways is not just the smallest of these problems but it is the easiest of them. >> host: next phone call, farmington, new jersey. karen joins us on the independent line. >> caller: yes, hi. i have a very simple point. i oppose the war in afghanistan and i also oppose the war in iraq and i was proven right. those who opposed war in iraq were proven so dramatically right. i'd like to ask mr. ricks, doesn't see that obama will never be able to convince us that we should now support the war in afghanistan because our simple, common sense was proven so right over all the pundits and generals we sa

richard holbrooke as a whole team of people that would call it a rebuilding a nation because he goes back in history to the times when afghanistan was more of a functioning country, but my point is there's no question that the metrics laid out in september were nation-building. i met with secretary gates, who might respect, at the pentagon, and we talked about a partial nation-building, and now, we talk about coming home in 18 months with our troops -- i realize civilians will stay at that point in time, and i realize the coming home part based on testimony yesterday was really just throw it, to sort of a peace people -- throwaway comment to sort of a people who are nervous about the buildup. to me, it is not clear, and i think the american people, -- the civilian side in particular is going to be for decades -- the whole budget in a guinness and today is about $90 million. security troops we're talking about are about $10 billion a year. i wonder whether it would make sense to really lay of clearly what all of this means, that from the standpoint of support for the next several deca

i spent a couple of hours over the defense department with richard holbrooke and visiting with team that to go over to afghanistan. he's taking his time and trying to make sure he gets the right people and not in a big rush to just get people on and they are trying to find the right ones. so i would like to know what percentages of the people that are going to be doing this taught be on the government payroll and not private contractors. are there too many that are on the private payroll? second of all, can't we do a better job of preparing those individuals that we're asking to do this job, i understand it takes about three years to train somebody up for one of these jobs. the other thing i'm interested in is who decides whether or not the private contractor is doing the job that you're paying them for. i found that too often you have private sector people on and the question is does the agency know whether or not they are getting a return on the investment that they are putting in to that private sector? so i'm anxious to hear your testimony today and the other two witnesses to follow.