but i think sometimes when i rook at the issues that plague large parts of south asia, the issue sometimes are similar to the cold war issues that the u.s. and the soviets faced for a long time. one the things i'd love to see is obviously i'm a fan of diplomacy. i'm a fan of dialect. i'd love to see the summit where iran is brought into the solution. we do listen to him. i think when it comes to a military solution in afghanistan, i know there are enormous pitfalls to pulling out. because it's not -- it's a very complex situation. but i do not think the answer is a military answer. very having been there, seen it, having driven all through the northern parts of the country. it's not afghanistan in particular is not a place where centralized government has ever been effective. whether there's been outside powers there or not. it's not a country that really operates on the concept. i think in terms of things we could share, i think sharing a judicial system that is truly based on equity and fairness would be enormously positive. the judicial system, the difference between iraq and afghanista

>> weville -- we will have to have a presence in south asia, because it's a critical area. al qaeda is still on the border, and you have other terrorist networks, that are disruptive to the pakistanis and afghanies. and pakistan has nuclear weapons and they have enmity with the indians. this is not an area where you pick and go, but the presence should be trainers and supportive elements. we want to and i think we will get to the point where afghany forces are able to handle their own security with limit the assistance. >> on an unrelated note, where do you think you see the civilian side of this? typically some of your aggressive colleagues have concerns if that affects our mission. how do you see that play out? >> there is a definite lack of government capacity, and that is not going to be cured in a brief time. and regardless of the situation in kabul, the approach in afghanistan is that there is a bit of a cultural disconnect. afghanistan has never had a strong central government but powered in the provinces. and the afghany's in this complex of the central government t

all of you who suffered south asia -- who served south asia understand that the interaction creates complicated dynamics and the history between pakistan and afghanistan since 1947 has been exceedingly complicated, and let us not forget the origins of what we're dealing with go back to the 1975 and 1985, and they are direct lines all the way through, and all of them are inherited, but i want to stress how central pakistan is to stability in the region by virtue of history, geography, ethnicity, and destiny, and our commitment to work with the pakistani is as close friends and allies is undiminished. a lot of what you read is stirred up by the media, but that is the fact. with your permission, i would love to let these people introduce themselves. >> let me ask a few more questions. >> fear getting agitated. >> let me squeeze in a few questions, and then we will introduce the team. not to worry. >> you will get your chance. >> i want to continue on this theme of what needs to be done. clearly, an important concept is the desire to not have to fight the taliban and reintegrate or reconcile import

lashkar-e-taiba's stated goals go beyond cash misch to all of south asia.lets are filled with attacks on hindus and jews. like al qaeda, it could be morphing into something larger and much more sinister. terrorism is waged by individuals. we saw these young peasant boys who had little education and no prospects in their country. they are the ones who enlist for the jihad. we have political and ideological forces on one hand and the simple despair of young men on the other. the two have combined to create a deadly mix. the only way this movie will end well is if we tackle both sides of this problem. we need to get the military and foreign policy right. we need to change the sense of hopelessness and culture of hate that exists in these societies. we need to help these young men you just watched embrace life rather than death. >>> the fbi had been watching naji buhl zazy for month, born in afghanistan, allegedly plotting to attack subway stations. video of this place, grand central terminal. zazy is one of a string of homegrown terror arrests this year. i'm d

worse than that, the disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia on a whole. the situation the president inherited is bad and has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. we have no time machine and cannot go back and do this over. we can wish of that, but it is not realistic. what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 en route is not for 9/11. what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to them in one sentence. like any one sentence summary, it lacks subtlety, nuance, but if done right it gets to the point. in eight years we have succeeded in moving at their core leadership, their senior operational planners and their propagation no insurer from candy bar, afghanistan, to an unknown location -- khandahar to afghanistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, intelligence officers, are diplomats, our allies who are fighting. it is not to diminish the accomplishments. the fundamental fact is that all qaeda to date remains a deadly enemy

worse than that, it is the stabling south and central asia -- asia as a whole.he president has inherited is bad and has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. but we have no time machine. we cannot go back and do it over. we can wish, but that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more on route if not for september 11. we all know that. what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to al qaeda in one sentence. like anyone sentence summary, it lacks subtlety, it lacks new wants and if done right, it gets to the point. in eight years we have succeeded in moving the al qaeda accord leadership, senior operational planners and propaganda instrument from kandahar, afghanistan, to a location on known -- unknown, believed to be a hundred miles away somewhere in pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers, and our diplomats and our allies in fighting al qaeda. it is not to dimini

lashkar's stated goals go beyond kashmir to all of south asia.t pamphlets are filled with attacks on hindus and jews. like al qaeda which began with limited goals, it could be morphing into something larger and much more sinister. but terrorism is waged by individuals. we saw these young peasant boys who had little education and no prospects in their country. they are the ones who enlist for the jihad. we have political and ideological forces on one hand and the simple despair of young men on the other. the two have combined to create a deadly mix. the only way this movie will end well is if we tackle both sides of this problem. we need to get the military and foreign policy right. we also need to help change the sense of hopelessness and culture of hate that exists in these societies. we need to help these young men you just watched embrace life rather than death. [ male announcer ] for over 150 years, wells fargo has been putting our clients first. according to a leading independent research firm, in 2009, clients rated wells fargo advisors the

burton, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia. he deals with this issue every day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. god bless you, my son. let me say that i heard the arguments from the opponents of this legislation. and my question to them would be, well, what's the alternative? you mention one, two, three, four, five, six, seven reasons why we shouldn't do this but iran is developing a nuclear weapons system. if you look at the "times" and the bbc, iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb. and it's the mechanism that explodes the nuclear bomb. now, we've been waiting and waiting and waiting for years for them to stop the development of a nuclear weapon. and they keep giving us all these reasons why they shouldn't be stopped and why they're not doing it and all kinds of things but the fact of the matter is they continue on the path toward a nuclear weapon. now, we get a

here is the secretary of defense in south asia and a senior advisor at the north atlantic treaty organization of a brussels. in 2009, president obama asked him to chair a review of american policy toward afghanistan and pakistan. the results were announced in a speech on march 22, 2009. the author of this book and the leadership and ideology -- he will be available for a book signing in the back. he will promise to save you were siepi purchase the boat. he will sign it. it is coming out in paperback. this is your last chance to get one in hard copy. he will be available for that briefly. at the top he will take the questions in answers. i would like to turn the floor over tubers. >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. it is an honor for me to be here today. the jamestown foundation has consistently provided americans and people around the world is some of the best analysis of what is going on. it is a very special pleasure to have this chance to be the keynote speaker. 10 months ago, i was minding my own business in my home on the eastern shore of maryland when the phone rang and

troops are invited in some of the fighting in somalia, currently in yemen, as well as the broader south asia region. but last year, instead of saying that africa is not a war area where we do not need a lot of troops and bases, instead of that, they say, well, we are going to set up an african command. they never had a separate command for africa. and they said to we're going to do is we will have the pentagon to take over everything the u.s. does in africa. so the pentagon is taking over aids and hiv care, health care development, overall development assistance. all this is now run by the pentagon. it would normally be run by the state department or usaid. this is dangerous, and we see it taking place in the creation of a new command in africa. the goal is to establish bases all over africa to do this. so far, the african government has said, we do not what your bases here. the headquarters is in germany now. the headquarters for africom is in germany, and there is no sign that that will change anytime soon. but the policy of militarizing the u.s. relationship with africa through our effort

>> to bring peace and security the south asia. 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 abandoned its values to support dictators and manipulate pakistan. how would you respond? >> there is no doubt that there is a gap of trust between the two countries. the president is correct that there is a great deal of suspicion on u.s. interests, that the united states would abandon the issue once again once the war in afghanistan is over. in the united states there are still lingering memories of 9/11 and the fact that al qaeda use that region to launch attacks against the united states. the efforts in the last year have been about brid

and it is from jonathan paris, south asia center of the atlantic council, london in the. and it is about pakistan, about the effect of our policy in pakistan. given that the obama administration several times during the last two months has said pakistan is a party that are you concerned that the mayor can pressure around the pakistani army to go after the afghan taliban inside baluchistan will ultimately undermine the cohesion of the pakistani army with and contribute to the destabilization of pakistan? is that sort of concern? >> i don't think any american official ever said quote pakistan is the prize, uncle. but what we did say and i will repeat again today, is that you can't separate the interconnectedness of the two countries. and the previous question illustrate why. the borders are not agreed on. and there are postern intermarried kinship patterns, family ties across them the disputed border. are we concerned about these issues? you bet. pakistani officials have said publicly prior to the president's decision and since the president's decision has sent 30000 additi

because the vietnamese communists just wanted to control vietnam and dominance over south asia.hey never had any designs over the united states or britain or france or germany. these people, the al qaeda and the friends in the taliban, want to cause misery in the lives of the people in the united states. so to stop them and suppress them and keep them off balance is a very, very worthwhile goal. the main problem i have with "playboy'mr. obama trip right now, you can't travel all the time. you should do things via e-mail. he's traveling all over the world at great expense. >> you have to go get the nobel prize. you can't bust him for that. >> i think he should say it's legitimate to get the nobel prize. just as it is okay for you businessmen to have your convention, too. >> with all due respect, there's a lot difference about going to get a nobel peace prize. he's not going on a raid at paris hilton's house. >> the difference is the nobel peace prize will not get anyone a job where the businessmen's convention might get someone a job. >> is he supposed to accept it by twitter? i

broader strategic objectives of preventing terrorist attacks and stabilizes the middle east and south asiamuch of the debate in congress has focused on the president's stated intention to begin withdrawing some u.s. troops by july 2011. some members have voiced concerns that such a date undercuts impressions of the u.s. resolve, gives the taliban and al qaeda a target beyond which they can wait us out. other members with a very different view of the war worry that july 2011 date is so flexible it offers no assurance that troops will be withdrawn. this is a legitimate item for debate, but i am doubtful the success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of afghan security forces and most importantly, how the united states engages with pakistan. i have confidence that the addition of tens of thousands of u.s. and allied troops under the direction of general petraeus and mcchrystal will improve the security situation on the ground and in afghanistan. more uncertain is whether the training mission will

burton, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia.e deals with this issue every day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. god bless you, my son. let me say that i heard the arguments from the opponents of this legislation. and my question to them would be, well, what's the alternative? you mention one, two, three, four, five, six, seven reasons why we shouldn't do this but iran is developing a nuclear weapons system. if you look at the "times" and the bbc, iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb. and it's the mechanism that explodes the nuclear bomb. now, we've been waiting and waiting and waiting for years for them to stop the development of a nuclear weapon. and they keep giving us all and they keep giving us all these reasons why they we get about 40% of our energy from the middle east. if you mess up the peshian gulf, if you have that -- persian gulf, it would suffer us beca

worse than that, it is the stabling south and central asia -- asia as a whole.he president has inherited is bad and has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. but we have no time machine. we cannot go back and do it over. we can wish, but that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more on route if not for september 11. we all know that. what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to al qaeda in one sentence. like anyone sentence summary, it lacks subtlety, it lacks new wants and if done right, it gets to the point. in eight years we have succeeded in moving the al qaeda accord leadership, senior operational planners and propaganda instrument from kandahar, afghanistan, to a location on known -- unknown, believed to be a hundred miles away somewhere in pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers, and our diplomats and our allies in fighting al qaeda. it is not to dimini

worse than that, a disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia as a whole.particularly, next door in pakistan. the situation the president inherited is bad and it has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. but we have no time machine. we cannot go back and do it over. we can wish for that, but that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more en route if not for 9/11. we all know that. what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done in one sentence. like any summary, it lacks subtlety. it lacks nuance. if done right, it gets to the point. in eight years, we have succeeded in moving the core leadership, the al qaeda senior operational planners from kandahar, afghanistan, to a location unknown, believed to be about 100 miles away, somewhere and pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers, and our diplomats, and our allies in fighting al qaeda. it is not to diminish the acc

all of you who suffered south asia -- who served south asia understand that the interaction creates complicated dynamics and the history between pakistan and afghanistan since 1947 has been exceedingly complicated, and let us not forget the origins of what we're dealing with go back to the 1975 and 1985, and they are direct lines all the way through, and all of them are inherited, but i want to stress how central pakistan is to stability in the region by virtue of history, geography, ethnicity, and destiny, and our commitment to work with the pakistani is as close friends and allies is undiminished. a lot of what you read is stirred up by the media, but that is the fact. with your permission, i would love to let these people introduce themselves. >> let me ask a few more questions. >> fear getting agitated. >> let me squeeze in a few questions, and then we will introduce the team. not to worry. >> you will get your chance. >> i want to continue on this theme of what needs to be done. clearly, an important concept is the desire to not have to fight the taliban and reintegrate or reconcile import

broader strategic objectives of preventing terrorist attacks and stabilizes the middle east and south asiamuch of the debate in congress has focused on the president's stated intention to begin withdrawing some u.s. troops by july 2011. some members have voiced concerns that such a date undercuts impressions of the u.s. resolve, gives the taliban and al qaeda a target beyond which they can wait us out. other members with a very different view of the war worry that july 2011 date is so flexible it offers no assurance that troops will be withdrawn. this is a legitimate item for debate, but i am doubtful the success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of afghan security forces and most importantly, how the united states engages with pakistan. i have confidence that the addition of tens of thousands of u.s. and allied troops under the direction of general petraeus and mcchrystal will improve the security situation on the ground and in afghanistan. more uncertain is whether the training mission will

worse than that, the disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia on a whole. the situation the president inherited is bad and has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. we have no time machine and cannot go back and do this over. we can wish of that, but it is not realistic. what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 en route is not for 9/11. what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to them in one sentence. like any one sentence summary, it lacks subtlety, nuance, but if done right it gets to the point. in eight years we have succeeded in moving at their core leadership, their senior operational planners and their propagation no insurer from candy bar, afghanistan, to an unknown location -- khandahar to afghanistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, intelligence officers, are diplomats, our allies who are fighting. it is not to diminish the accomplishments. the fundamental fact is that all qaeda to date remains a deadly enemy

broader strategic objectives of preventing terrorist attacks and stabilizes the middle east and south asia. much of the debate in congress has focused on the president's stated intention to begin withdrawing some u.s. troops by july 2011. some members have voiced concerns that such a date undercuts impressions of the u.s. resolve, gives the taliban and al qaeda a target beyond which they can wait us out. other members with a very different view of the war worry that july 2011 date is so flexible it offers no assurance that troops will be withdrawn. this is a legitimate item for debate, but i am doubtful the success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of afghan security forces and most importantly, how the united states engages with pakistan. i have confidence that the addition of tens of thousands of u.s. and allied troops under the direction of general petraeus and mcchrystal will improve the security situation on the ground and in afghanistan. more uncertain is whether the training mission wi

worse than that, a disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia as a whole.k and do it over. we can wish for that, that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more in research if not for 9/11. we all know that. what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done in one sentence. like any summary, it lacks subtlety. at lax new ones. if done right, tickets to the point. in eight years, we have succeeded in moving the core w3leadership, the al qaeda senir operational planners from kandahar, afghanistan's to a location on known, believed to be about 100 miles away somewhere and pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers, and our diplomats, and our allies in fighting al qaeda. it is not to diminish the accomplishments we have made. but the fundamental fact is that al qaeda today remains a deadly enemy of the united states of america and our allies. it is the first truly global terr

troops are invited in some of the fighting in somalia, currently in yemen, as well as the broader south asia region. but last year, instead of saying that africa is not a war area where we do not need a lot of troops and bases, instead of that, they say, well, we are going to set up an african command. they never had a separate command for africa. and they said to we're going to do is we will have the pentagon to take over everything the u.s. does in africa. so the pentagon is taking over aids and hiv care, health care development, overall development assistance. all this is now run by the pentagon. it would normally be run by the state department or usaid. this is dangerous, and we see it taking place in the creation of a new command in africa. the goal is to establish bases all over africa to do this. so far, the african government has said, we do not what your bases here. the headquarters is in germany now. the headquarters for africom is in germany, and there is no sign that that will change anytime soon. but the policy of militarizing the u.s. relationship with africa through our effort

the ranking member of the subcommittee on south asia, mr. burton is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i believe that commitment is extremely important. and the civilian commitment is important, but they have to be covered by the military. today at 12:59 p.m. admiral mullen said, in part that by roughly the july time frame, we'll have 20 to 25,000 troops in theater, and there will be 5,000 troops that will be over there very shortly. now, if the time frame is correct in my mind, the president is indicating he wants to start removing troops in july 2011. and you're telling us that they're not going to be there until july 2010. that gives one year before they start removing the troops. i understand that this can be adjusted and the witnesses have indicated that this can be adjusted. if the need arises, but what kind of a signal does it send to the taliban and al qaeda, when you know that the troops aren't going to be there until july, and you're going to have them out -- or start moving them out a year from then. even if

worse than that, the disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia as a whole.ost particularly, next door in pakistan. the situation the president inherited is bad and has gotten then. but we have no time machine. we cannot go back and do it over. we can wish for that, but that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more en route if not for september 11, we all know that. so what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to help guide in one sentence. like anyone sentence summary, it lacks subtlety, it lacks nuance, but if done right, it gets to the point. in eight years we have succeeded in moving the al qaeda core leadership, their senior operational planners and propaganda instrument from kandahar, afghanistan, to an unknown location, believed to be about 100 miles away, somewhere in pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers, and our diplomats and our allies who are figh

admiral mullen in his testimony says that south asia is the epicenter of global islamic terrorism. and i think this decision will have tremors well beyond that epicenter. my friend from ohio just mentioned guantanamo. i would like to ask admiral mullen and secretary gates, if they would still stand by their earlier statements which i believe are correct that closing guantanamo removes a symbol to the jihadists we are fighting. would you still agree with that. >> yes, i do. >> i said that in 2005 and i believe it today. >> and so the relationship of the guantanamo question of this it makes it more difficult for those whom we are fighting in afghanistan and otherwise to recruit those to fight against us. i want to ask you about pakistan and the tremors that it involves in relationship to this. if we are successful in this military anything else substantially degrading al-qaeda and the taliban in and near the afghan-pakistani border, what impact do any of you think that would have on the stability of the pakistani government? >> i think it would have a significant impact. i think the

the strategy in march was to try to pull together the regional aspects of security in central and south asia. now looking at just afghanistan or pakistan but looking at the two together. 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

madam speaker, and i join my colleagues as a member of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia, on the house foreign affairs committee. today our committee debated a very important nirttive dealing with iran sanctions, but it is interesting that we find ourselves in one domino effect after another. iran, iraq and then by extension, afghanistan and pakistan. today i rise with a plea to this government and to the state department to save those who are now huddled at the camp in iraq. this government that we have propped up, that we have seen thousands of our treasure lost in iraq so we could have a democratic government so that it would have its own boundaries and own sovreignty and would not be a puppet of some other country. yet iranian dissidents are huddled and fearful of their lives. we are more concerned about a desire to move the camp to someplace else inside iraq. the expectation is they would try to move them to a different location in iraq and that would lead to bloodshed. iraqi authorities say we must not forcibly relocate and force them and put them at risk to arrest,

south asia, which poses the greatest terrorist threat currently to the homeland and to the arabian peninsula, which i believe will present itself as the next greatest threat to the united states. the decision to move these terrorists to the u.s. may force the administration to choose between freeing terrorists into illinois or transferring back -- them back to the center of the battle. is this the policy position we want to put our country in while we are still combating terrorism? no one doubts the security of our prisons to safely hold these individuals. i doubt the ability of our laws and judicial system to ensure that these terrorists are convicted or to be kept in prison. prohibiting the detainees from entering into the united states is the only guarantee. however, the decision to move the remaining terrorists at gitmo to heart of this country shattered any remaining hope for this guarantee. this is, yet another step in a series of poor policy decisions which is leading our country in the wrong direction. i'm disappointed by this sition, obviously. -- this decision, obviously. i can onl

the consequences will be on global economic security and security in the middle east and south asia regionsher major issues.the president and m justified the be plan not only on how it will affect afganistan, but how it will affect our effort to promote a strong are alliance with pakistan that embraces vital common objectives. sects clinton and gates and admiral mullens underscore the administration's executing a regional strategy. i'm encouraged by press reports that have described the intense diplomatic efforts with the pakistani government aimed at securing much greater cooperation. but we should remain cognizant that the focus of policy tends to follow resources. by that measure, afganistan will still be at the core of our regional efforts. the president has said that the united states did not choose this war, and he's correct. but with these troop deployments in afganistan, we are choosing the battlefield where we will concentrate most of your available military resources. the afganistan battlefield has the inherent disadvantage of sitting astride a border with pakistan that is a porou

worst than that, the disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia as a whole.t particularly, next door in pakistan. the situation the president inherited is bad and has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. but we have no time machine. we cannot go back and do it over. we can wish for that, but that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more enroute if not for september 11. we all know that. so what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to al qaeda in one sentence. like any one-sentence summary, it lacks subtle ti. in eight years, we have succeeded in moving the al qaeda core leadership, their senior operational planners and propoganda instrument from kandahar, afghanistan to a location unknown, believed to be about 100 miles away somewhere in pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers and our diplomats and allies in fighting al qaeda. it is not to diminish the acc

>> my colleague the deputy secretary for defense for south asia, bob sheer who looks over the militaryand i'll ask people from the pentagon press office to get in touch with you to follow up on that question. >> i wonder if we could get more perspective what that means. you mentioned there were the near-term needs the pakistanis wanted. and you said border cooperation and i.s.r. is there anything else beyond that, especially military relations with officers, with training? you know, what more can you shed on that? >> one area where i think we and the pakistanis would like to do a lot more is the area of military exchanges and training. i think all of you have heard from admiral mullen about the 12-year gap we have that was created because of our sanctions on pakistan in the past. we are increasing. i think i have to get back toout exact figure. but i think it's a four-fold increase in international military exchange with pakistan in the last year. i personally would like to see about a ten-fold increase. every opportunity we have and we're very fortunate it's not just the department of

one was south america but the other area was in north asia.he area of northern china, the russian empire, korea, manchuria. he thought it was key for the future oameric b to have americs big stick out their in northern asia but he was frustrated because congress would not provide him the troops to wield his big stick. knowing that he could not get american troops out there, he looks for a surrogate. he looked at the japanese and he said, the japanese soldiers are the most dashing fighters in the world. he had his cabinet -- demonstrated jiggetts to hold some that the practice three times a week. the broad u.s. army generals into the white house and stage matches and gave lectures about how japan is a rising rates and there's someone to be trusted. roosevelt was told by his secretary of state that he would never get a treaty through congress that would allow him to ally with japan in north asia. so, he wrote secretly, you know the senate is not a good body for making treaties. i will make a wise foreign policy on my own. so in the summer of 190

success in south and central asia by islamic extremists would beget success on other fronts. it would strengthen the narrative, providing renewed opportunities for recruitment and more sophisticated operations. aided by the internet, many more followers to join the ranks. they can execute a tax. from unit to london to dinne-- m munich to london. this part of the world represents the efficent and -- epicenter of jihadist extremism. it caused the collapse. for them to be seen to defeat the sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe consequences for the united states in the world. some say this is similar to the domino timeframe that modeled the vietnam. we have very real and recent history that shows just what can happen in this part of the world where extremists have breathing space, safe havens, and governments supportive of their mission. less than five years after the last soviet tank crossed the bridge out of of afghanistan, islamic militants launched their first attack on the world trade center in new york. we cannot afford to make a similar mistake aga

success in south and central asia by islamic extremists as was the case 20 years ago, would the get success on other fronts for goldenson quimby al qaeda narrative, providing opportunities for recruitment, fund-raising and more sophisticated operations. it is true that al qaeda and its followers simplot unexecuted sacks from a variety of locations from munich to london to denver, but what makes the border area between afghanistan and pakistan uniquely different from any other location including somalia, yemen or elsewhere is that this part of the world represents the epicenter of this extremist jihadism. the historic place where native and foreign muslims defeated one superpower and in their view cossets collapsed at home. for them to be seen to defeat the sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe consequences for this country and the world. some say this is similar to the domino theory that underpinned and ultimately muddy the thinking behind u.s. military escalation in vietnam. the difference however is that we have very real and very recent history that shows just wha

worst than that, the disaster in afghanistan is destabilizing south and central asia as a whole.t particularly, next door in pakistan. the situation the president inherited is bad and has gotten worse in the 10 months since then. but we have no time machine. we cannot go back and do it over. we can wish for that, but that is not a realistic strategy. so what is the situation today? let me start with al qaeda. we would not have 70,000 american troops in afghanistan and 35,000 more enroute if not for september 11. we all know that. so what is the status of al qaeda today? i will summarize what we have done to al qaeda in one sentence. like any one-sentence summary, it lacks subtle ti. in eight years, we have succeeded in moving the al qaeda core leadership, their senior operational planners and propoganda instrument from kandahar, afghanistan to a location unknown, believed to be about 100 miles away somewhere in pakistan. that is not to diminish the hard work of our soldiers, our intelligence officers and our diplomats and allies in fighting al qaeda. it is not to diminish the acc

success in south and central asia by islamic extremists would beget success on other fronts. would strengthen the al qaeda narrative, providing renewed opportunities for recruitment, fundraising, and more sophisticated operations. it is true that al qaeda and its followers can plot and executed tax from a variety of locations, from munich, to london, to denver. what makes the border area between afghanistan and pakistan uniquely different from any other location, including somalia and elsewhere is that this part of the world represents the epicenter of extremist jihadism. foreign muslims defeated one superpower and causing its collapse at home. for them to be seen to defeat this so remaining superpower would have consequences for this country and the world. some say this is similar to that, though -- domino theory that to muddied military escalation in vietnam. the difference is we have very real and recent history that shows what can happen in this part of the world when extremists have breathing space, a safe haven, and governments composite with and supportive of their mis

asia, for example. the gdp of mexico was comparable to south korea. now south korea is way ahead. where are we in terms of engagement? let me preface it by saying we have we want and whole new tone. that is the most important thing that i can tell you today. we want to read engage with the atmosphere on the basis of mutual respect, on working together to solve common problems, with the united states being a partner. we want to be able to listen to the secretary has already traveled to the region for the president has traveled to the region. the vice president has traveled to the region. there have been and number of high-level meetings where this has been conveyed. we want to work together with mutual respect in order to solve our common problems. now that i had been on the job since november 10, i have been to mexico, canada, and i am leaving on sunday to visit brazil, argentina, or a quiet, compared wide. -- are required -- uraguay an d paraguay. we need to engage two -- three very broad things. i have like eight things in my formal speech. but let's reduce it to three things. t