Thank you for coming. My name is peter bergen. Welcome to you. Cspan is covering this live. When we get to the question and answer session please, i want to make sure you identify yourself and wait for the mic so the audience outside the room can hear your question. So today were going to discuss afghanistan 2017 and prospects for the future. And we have two brilliant panelists to discuss that. Ambassador mohib who is the ambassador to United States from afghanistan. Hes previously worked as ganis deputy chief of staff. He directed intel. He worked at the american in afghanistan. He has a ph. D. From the united kingdom. And ioanni koskinas who has been living in afghanistan pretty much since 2010. Ioanni runs a Company Called hop life which provides intelligence and security analysis to businesses in afghanistan. Hes also doing his ph. D. At Kings College on the afghan civil war. Hes a retired air force colonel in special operations who works for crystal who was the commander in afghanistan. So over to, ambassador. And we look forward to your comments. Mr. Mohib thank you, peter and ioanni. Glad to see you again. Im glad to have the opportunity to talk about afghanistan and where it is and where were going. And what we expect from the new leadership here in washington. I want to begin by addressing something that i think is at the forefront of everyones mind that has been following afghanistan and that is the testimony before Congress Last week by my good friend general nicholson. The big takeaway from his comments was that militarily speaking afghan and allied forces are in quote unquote stalemate with the enemy. I want to Say Something here about the National Security forces the afghan Security Forces. The high level of all soldiers that were taking is not a sign of weakness. It is evidence of their resolve to win the fight against terrorism not just for afghanistan but also for the world. It is also a sign of the increase in the number of terrorist groups operating in our region and the advanced capability that they do have today. Were encouraged to see that the new administration is focusing on strategic goals rather than troop numbers alone. And taking into account the military needs of the Afghan Defense and Security Forces in terms of enablers, the National Security reasons that propel the United States into afghanistan 16 years ago are as urgent as ever. Perhaps more so with it increasingly resurging itself itself with both russia on the talibans side of the equation. As ambassador, i get the same question a lot from people in washington here. Are the taliban winning . Is it true that they control more territory than at any time since they were ousted from power . Im not going to exaggerate or our our victories but that doesnt tell our whole story of what is happening. Its required a change in mentality from focusing on not losing the war to focusing on winning. In his testimony, general nicholson called for a ballistic reviews with pakistan. This is very encouraging to hear because you cannot talk about the state of security in afghanistan without talking about the state of terrorism and support provided by pakistan. The two are intrinsically connected. One is the cause. The other is the effect. And until the u. S. Takes meaningful action the severe to sever that connection, our two countries prolonged and costly joint effort against terrorism in the afghan region cannot succeed. This isnt a subjective opinion. This is an objective fact. Victory requires a paradigm shift in american thinking about pakistan. Finally, i want to take talk about the trend line that is improving in afghanistan. I realize that our security situation tends to dominate washington thinking and that the steady drum beat of attacks sometimes make it hard to see the good things that have happened since the current government was elected in late 2014. And although were making Real Progress in our very public, very Robust Campaign to root out and punish corruption, in 2014, when president ioanni took office, our assessment of the government highlighted that corruption was an existential threat to the Afghan Government. It was made a priority of the new administration to bring about institutional and fiscal reform. Weve made much needed progress since then. Even so, you cant divert decades of systemic endemic corruption in just 24 months or end a deeply engrained livelihood of poppy cultivation in that short amount of time. And the attention tends to those problems receive tends to obscure progress in other equally important areas. But the president s road map to selfreliance is moving us in the right direction. Support to the governments reform agenda must also become an international priority. What we are telling our American Partners and what i told President Trump when i had a moment of his time recently is that the groundwork has been laid for afghanistan to emerge from years of war and poverty. The hard work has been done. We have democratic institutions, constitutions that guarantees or citizens equal and human rights, a leader who is committed to good governance, accountability, education for all, and job opportunities. And perhaps most important to allies and partners, in addition to waging fees were committed to ending our independence. Were closer than ever before to selfreliance and stability. It is our peoples utmost desire. We see the light at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel is still long. No doubt about that. But the light wasnt there just a couple of years ago. And we cant afford to let it go now. Thank you. \[applause] thank you, sir. Ill keep my comments very short. I think with such a big audience questions are probably more appropriate to take us in Different Directions than the comments. But i will echo this. I went to afghanistan my first time in 2005. And i felt like i was late to the game in 2005. But certainly it got in me and ive stayed there ever since. I left the military in 2011 after spending a couple of years in afghanistan working for general mcchrystal twice. And i had a chance of working with then dr. Gani and one of the academics and enlightened people that had come back to afghanistan to really make a difference. Spending a lot of time with dr. Gani at the time, a couple times a week for several hours for almost 10 months was actually one of the things that raised my awareness about how little i knew about afghanistan. And in many regards it made me commit myself to a lot of things. Gandhi gani pinned my colonel rank when i was promoted that. And he made the trip just for that to the states a at time when, you know, quite frankly money was probably tight because he was doing a lot of things on his own. So i appreciated what happened then. And i mentioned this little vignette only so far to tell you that i he was one of the reasons why i stayed in afghanistan. But in a lot of ways the people of afghanistan have been the reason why ive remained. And they are a willing partner for us. Theyre actually very much in tune with the idea of an american involvement in the region and the stabilizing of a region thats actually facing some serious issues with fundamentalism. But ill tell you this that i dont think weve done enough on our end. Im not saying that we havent spent enough. We certainly have. Im not saying we havent sacrificed enough. I think we have. Ive been to plenty of funerals in arlington to tell you that certainly our blood has been spilled and our money has been spent. The troubling is i dont think the trouble is i dont think we considered a return on investment as a prior priority in the way that we approach afghanistan. Weve used burn rate. You know if we spent x amount of money obviously were doing something. Weve used numbers in terms of troops. But in terms of the way that we approach things, we certainly havent used, you know, return on investment actually as part of our commitment. So i hope that we we talk about some of this stuff in our question and answer session. But ill tell you that that every day that im in afghanistan im reminded that our commitment cant be one year at a time. Our support cannot be very veneer in surface. Conditions matter. Time lines dont. And i think that we owe a lot more both to the people who have sacrificed a lot from afghanistan but also from our troops and civilians to actually try to win, exactly what you said, rather than not lose. And quite frankly we also need to talk about staying rather than talk about not leaving. So with that, i appreciate the opportunity to speak and thank you for having me. [applause] dr. Mohib, how would you characterize the state of play with the taliban . What the United States usually says is that the taliban controls a third of the a third of the population of afghanistan. Is that talked about . Whats talked about is not the population. Its mostly the territory. What we start to Pay Attention to is where those tactical wars have been leading. In 2014 when the International Troops withdrew, they took their powers with them. The afghan Security Forces do not have the adequate air power to disrupt larger taliban attacks. What they were able to do in the past was small attacks in the small number of groups. Because the air power disrupted them. With that capability gone, they had the ability to be able to launch major attacks. They were not able to sustain it. They could launch a major attack, disrupt an area, a district and then not be able to sustain it because the afghan Security Forces would move in and take it back. So we have been tested and there are serious challenges that we need to address. But the focus here needs to be on how do we make sure that this that this capable is added to the afghan Security Forces so that those attacks could be marginalized. In the past we had smaller groups and smaller units that manned a smaller check post and once the number of attackers became and the numbers 200 instead of being six, this small check post was no longer enough. So we had to retreat into bigger units so that we could launch offensives. And thats taken as an attitude of taliban controlling territory. Theyre not really controlling territory is that we no longer man it. Were doing this in an offensive capability. What sort of air power are you talking about that the Afghan Military needs . Helicopters. Close air support. Thats a must in the kind of terrain that we are fighting. And its also a must so that we have eyes on the battleground ahead of us. Today, the afghan Security Forces when they fight and without the Close Air Support and the i. S. R. Capabilities that are needed, the taliban are at an advantage because were wearing a uniform where theyre not. So they can hit us, identify us easier than we can because they can disguise themselves as civilians. Didnt the Obama Administration change the rules of engagement . They have but there is no replacement for the afghan Security Forces having their own capabilities for those offenses. And when you say helicopters what are you talking about . Well, combat helicopters. We are looking for combat force. And also were looking if enablers in medivac. To be able to get air and lift. A lot of the casualties we have had over the past years have been during transport, not on the battlefield. And our Security Forces being transported and soft vehicles that came under attack and land mines and what they have today, those magnetic bombs that ended up causing the most casualties. So airlift is an important factor. It also gives us the eyes and the ears. And also gives us the capability to disrupt larger units from attacking district center. Do you kind of observe this assessment . I actually i was listening saying what do i add to that. There isnt that much i can. I think thats a perfect assessment. The one thing i would add though is that well, two things. One air power takes a long time for it to reach, you know, to reach its potential. Whereas you may train Ground Troops in six, seven weeks. Or you can specialize them in a few months get them even more, you know, seasoned over a year. They may actually take a yearplus to get a pilot trained. It may take a year plus to, you know, orient somebody to a particular airport. Airplane. Look for example general nicholson mentioned in his testimony that there are u. S. Helicopters that are being considered to go to afghanistan. But the process of getting these helicopters there may take up to two years. So the long lead time for the airpower has been part of the problem. Anybody who has been in afghanistan, you know, during 10, 11, 12, you start looking at, you know, bulldozered airplanes over to one side of the airfield because we picked the wrong airplanes and then we sold them for scrap for a few cents for the dollar. These mistakes are costly when youre looking at how youre able to project air power in the long run. And if i may one more thing about this, the trends are something we cant deny. When somebody says how did we do in comparison to 2015, 2016, the numbers come out rather quickly. But as the am bass mentioned mentioned, context matters. Its a figure that lays out and even if number excuse me even the number of districts or population senators that the Afghan Government controls even those are troubling. So we have to look at the context that he is mentioning. Percentages are like an old friend of mine used to say about 74 of statistics lie. So those are something that, you know, you should take stock of. You mentioned pakistan. And youre a diplomat. What would you say you mentioned that the administration might be taking a look at the relationship with pakistan. What is your assessment because, of course, anybody who has done any time in afghanistan knows that most people say if only pakistan would start harboring stop harboring these groups, our problems would be over. That seems simplistic to me. What is the role of pakistan . Is it getting better, worse . How do you assess it . Every neighbor is either a spoiler or can remain neutral until many cases if not helpful at least. In this case its an active in this case, its an active spoiler. In the pastessed , weve noticed pakistani leadership travels under pakistani passports. They are provided with hospitals and medical support. You are saying that Pakistani Taliban leadership . Inafghan leadership pakistan. Those are things that cannot be hidden. We saw where the head of al qaeda was, and those things highlight a few important factors. Of making it sound like it is a blame game has now it is no longer viable. This is objective fact. All of those things have happened, and they have happened in the recent past, so they cannot be forgotten so quickly. Savekistan wants to itself, what we are worried effect. That pakistans future itself. Note terrorists do recognize those boundaries as restrictions to them and would soon return their own weapons on pakistan. What is happening to us today can become the future of pakistan and for that reason as well, i think it is in the interest of the Pakistani Administration to assist us in fromnating the terrorists that region, and sincerely. Not just say and talk about it. We need to see some action. We have always had good words from pakistan, and it continues to be the case. They speak about cooperation, and they always have very good , but it nevert in materializes in action. Pakistanismean, the did do a major operation in North Waziristan, right . They did, but on elements they consider a threat to themselves, not to afghanistan or the region, and this is where i think that distinction becomes the issue. If they are our enemies today, they will soon turn and become your enemies tomorrow, so lets look at this from a more strategic objective, and if pakistan wants to make a good friend out of afghanistan, this is not the way forward. This is not the way to win influence in a country. What about isis . The one thing i would say about pakistan is a lot of people want to Group Afghanistan and pakistan together. The reality is that we have to look at them for their own interest, there on personal there are national agendas, and where we do not want to have conflict from an American Perspective is when it is conflicting with our national. Nterest when we talking about fundamentalism or the operation is that they held in North Waziristan, obviously, it was a significant event because they dealt with their own terrorism borders. Along their the problem is when you are looking at our National Interest that they also bulldozered over a lot of elements into afghanistan, which obviously insed a ripple that we saw 2015 and 2016 that we were still dealing with. In some ways, it displaced lowlevel sanctuaries inside North Waziristan and put them in place as sanctuaries in some those we mentioned earlier, the percentages are that they control some territory, so when you are looking at those things, you actually have to again put it in context. A holistic review of pakistan should be a holistic review as it relates to our National Interest, and what i mentioned is contrary to our National Interest, what is going on there. Their behavior is contrary to our National Interest when it comes to our people getting blown up. When you actually map out where something came into afghanistan ids or funneling of personnel or if its kidnap in the tribal areas, there is a connection with a lot of the stuff that goes on in pakistan. Tend tole is again, we not understand the dynamics of the region, so we just group things together. We formulate what we believe is a joint sort of effort, how to calculate problems together, but in reality, we just turn the page and not really address anything. Also, isis, isnt a problem in afghanistan, getting bigger, smaller apple al qaeda is it a problem . Bigger, smaller . We have been able to target isis because of again, the rules of engagement. We have the capabilities to launch several offenses attacks. We have seriously disrupted the operations of isis and their strongholds, but they still exist, and we cannot what they can continue to do if we divert our attention. For the time the end, we are able to contain isis, and it is because we are focusing. Ofis there any evidence people from isis leaving syria and iraq and moving to afghanistan or pakistan . I would answer the question slightly different, with a different perspective. Oftalked about a little bit pakistan, but, you know, when you talk about isis, again, there is a pakistani element to it. They all started from that side and migrated into afghanistan. A lot of them are pakistani, and base and established a controlled multiple districts, but in reality, that is not a ground it is not an element that is, you know, native to afghanistan, if you will. The talent and, on the other hand, are. What we are looking at in 2016 we cannot tackle the problems in 2017 as we did in 2016 because it was not that successful. We did put some pressure on them, but they were still able to create, attach in kabul and elsewhere and killed hundreds of people and actually fomented some ethnic dissent. Credit tog, you give the society can afghanistan that it did not react violently to those things, but i will tell you this and this is actually going back to your previous question. When you are looking at holistic approaches, we are also not taking holistic approaches to afghanistan. New administrations, we have to give them a little time, but there is a standin ambassador. We lost the ambassador at the state department that dealt with afghanistanpakistan issues. Nobody is actually at the level ofwith any authority, or, quite frankly, as it happens with every , the dont have anybody there, so when general mickelson is at the hearing and somebody asks them what is going on with 300 troops going into hellmann, are you looking at counting narcotics, counter narcotics is not my area. Its not what i deal with. Fair enough. But that is a big deal when highestoing into the percentage of, you know, opiumproducing elements. You kind of have to think about how we approach this. Then we talk about should the taliban be labeled a terrorist group. Ok, im not a diplomat. I will say yes, 100 . The taliban are a terrorist group. Iny had and engaging terrorist activities. They should have been labeled years ago, and some absurd notion that somehow if we keep them off the list that somehow they will want to talk reconciliation is about as naive as i can possibly imagine, but, not that im upset about it, but the point is when general mickelsons ask that, he also cannot give an answer because theres nobody at state that can possibly answer that, so we have to have a holistic approach and review, not just in pakistan but also in afghanistan because we cannot expect the brave troops that have been taking so many risks, our folks that are taking so many risks albeit not as much as the afghans you cannot expect them to go into battle with uncertainty of where are we going with this in 2017 . So i am emboldened in some way that we are going through this journey right now. But we have a lot of work to do. A lot of work to do. The movement part. Trade creates a smuggling route, and this is not just used for the smuggling of heroin. Its also used for Human Trafficking for weapons smuggling. In oneeople are moving direction or another, they are using the same routes and the same networks that are providing that capability, and once again, it becomes an important area to focus on because it is not only providing the funding to the terrorists. It is also providing access to fighterse able to move and have that human smuggling coming on. Reconciliation, peace talks with the taliban. Is anything happening echo what are the prospects . The Afghan Government has our effortsunted for reconciliation. We have to, at the same time, defend our population from these attacks. You saw the number of civilians being targeted just this past week alone. That is not acceptable. If you have a question, wait for the microphone and identify yourself. I just wanted to ask you on reconciliation, given the progress that the taliban has been making militarily, is it ,ealistic to defeat the taliban or does there have to be reconciliation . And i wondered what your views are on the russian initiative, to have the peace talks. As i said in my comments earlier, we need a shift in mentality from not losing to winning, and we have to win in afghanistan. Not winning in afghanistan means insurgents across the world will begin and the and opportunity to consider that they can bring down legitimate governments and terrorize the world. We must do that. And, yes, the capabilities exist and we can defeat the terrorists in afghanistan, and there are a few things that we need to do going from what we have already. Een doing there is a strategy for the next four years to be able to useease the units that we in offense of operations, to increase our intelligence so that they can much more enemy precisely, and at the same time, disrupt their channels of and other sources that are coming. That requires an International Effort where we need the Community Support and putting the kind of pressure that is necessary on pakistan to eliminate those kinds of safe havens but also to come up with ways together to end those sanctuaries. What we were talking about is the conditions earlier. What we need to be able to address is what it is we want to achieve in afghanistan, and that goal should be the right answer we want to win against terrorists. We want to win in a country that has been at war for close to 40 years, and once we have come to when need toon, determine the targets and the responsibilities of the Afghan Government, the afghan Security Forces, the International Community, and our neighbors to be able to achieve that goal so we create some positive consensus. Instead of our neighbors being busy trying to convince russia that they need to support the taliban, they need to play an active role in defeating the terrorists that are killing our people. When you say the russians are supporting the taliban, what do you mean . We have received rhetoric about taliban being able to or at least any kind of talk with the taliban that gives them any kind of legitimacy. Defeats the point. Our goal and the international be toitys goal should defeat terrorism in that region, and the only way to do that is legitimate sources of the people, the elected government of the people, so any kind of support provided in ending terrorism must be channeled through the Afghan Government. Whatan freelancing are you specifically referring to . Any country that perhaps makes notions that there may be an alternative makes that point. Bein some ways, russia would interested in obtaining the taliban issue in a place like afghanistan so it does not spread in uzbekistan or some of the other areas that were formerly in their control. Their concern with islamic from thealism coming south into their territories, but in the end, theres not that much that they are doing. In afghanistan. Another aspect of it that i think to answer your question, if i may, reconciliation is this thing that we sort of kept out there in case it catches, you know . And of course, it has to be out there. You always want to have that dialogue open. That,nt the ability to do and the Afghan Government has been openminded. Return onh to it, investment. We spent a lot of money on it, put a lot of stock in some of these activities, both in time, bandwidth, and money, and it just has not yielded anything, so the idea of continuing down that path with zero chance of it , i do not put that much emphasis on it. The last thing i would say is all roads do not go through in islamabad. When you are looking at peace negotiations, the idea that do not have those in a neutral place, if its switzerland or wherever and you are having than in islamabad, to me, that is just naive. And i use the word not because it is not wellintentioned, but just because nobody has paid attention to the fact that we have had the fish our the peshawar reports. That was when we were dealing with another reconciliation effort and it failed because people have their own National Interests at play. Its not about afghanistan if it is being held in islamabad. Im sorry, its just not there. Idea. Iliation is a good i hope it eventually happens. Its the only way that these things and, but they linger for a while, and i do not want to spend any time on something that, quite frankly, is not bearing any fruit. Just like they are doing in syria, just like they are doing in a lot of places, most of it is to give us a black eye more than have any sort of result. I agree with what i take from all the panelists that the u. S. Needs to reexamine its policy. Owards pakistan if you had a chance to talk to the current administration, how should the policy change . What are the pressure points . All this blood and treasure that manyeen expended, and efforts have been made to thatnce the pakistanis harboring taliban leadership is not in their best interest, they continue to do it. How can the u. S. Get to a policy that might bring change in syria . A list of activities we would like to share with them that we would like to keep that weight on what can be done, but it is also in the interest of pakistan. It is hurting pakistan more in the Economic Future than it is right now. The damage done in afghanistan is positive, but we would like to see a peaceful and stable pakistan because it is also an hour interests. We have witnessed what conflict does to a country, and we do not wish it on anyone. We have practical recommendations and what needs to be done. The economympacting that we were talking about, those illegal groups. They may be bringing in a small compared to how big an income that is. A small amount may be channeled a big amountn, but of that is somewhere else because the processing of opium happens not in afghanistan. What can the region due to eliminate and change that illegal economy is a threat to their own stability. I actually think that first of all, when we talk about are notban, the taliban recognizing the line as a border. The point is that we should be targeting them on both sides. My advice would be for selected targets come the fact that we killed the leader of the taliban, that should be something we do again and again if necessary. We have to raise the stakes in terms of negative behavior. There should be some very in our policy. Bringinghear me keep this back. We also need to reassess our strategy. I was hoping we would address it also, but we are not good friends to people. Part of our 12step recovery is to say we have a problem. Problem is we are not committing ourselves to the people we are supporting. Sometimes you have to pick your friends and enemies and if somebody is behaving as a friend, you treat them as a friend. If someone is behaving as an enemy, you treat them as an enemy. We have to look at that, and, iite frankly, in afghanistan, use the example of we were signatories in the National Unity government. They are about some things that almost put a blame on the Afghan Government. We have not actually honored our signatory commitment in that we have to advance the agenda, help them as they achieve things. There are some very specific we can do. You mentioned about russia, but i believe general nicholson also talked about irans activities legitimizing the television and again as could you comment on that as well . The iranian role in their connection with taliban and their legitimizing role . Rhetoric,s a lot of talk about what is provided, but that can be interpreted separately, but our key message to all our neighbors, to work with any group that is not a not of the and people is a threat to what kind forrecedent is set cooperation. That we worknt with the Afghan Government. We have had the highest number of casualties. We are determined to end terrorism and we will continue to do so, whatever it takes. It is also not just the government that the afghan and their desire. To comment on what perhaps the is what they are used to be. Gangs that control a small area. The only thing that is central about them is their communication. They do illegal mining, illegal logging. Group that can provide any kind of alternative and anyone that treats them as such is making a mistake. You have spoken about the military side of it, but doesnt it also require that at the same time that afghanistan demonstrate that there is a viable government which is preferable . In that respect, i would like to ask if the absence of unity political unity within the government at the moment to what extent is that a drag on the struggle against the taliban . I would like to take that. I keep on throwing you first. Ok. You notice today my talking points were focused on three areas security, pakistan, and the reform agenda. The Afghan Government is extremely determined to bring that point on board, and that is a legitimate government must be able to provide its people with the services they need the rule of law and the people to be able to rely on it. A government that steals from its people does not instill confidence in it. For the Afghan People to be able to have confidence and support, it will also attract maybe some of those lowlevel insurgents who are perhaps who joined the taliban because they feel the Afghan Government may not be able to provide the services. For that, we are working on it. When we did our assessment, we considered our assessment and existential threat. We put major focus on where those reforms were needed. They have been recognized by independent thirdparty verifiers. Third parties have seen there has been a reduction corruption a reduction in corruption in those areas, but we are also bringing in systems, and once you put systems in place, it takes away the need for people to have those strongmen, so there has been fierce resistance to reforms in afghanistan, and again, my point is the International Community must support the Afghan Government, the constitution, and its own reform agenda, and we can hold ourselves and our government responsible for that. Can i add something . International community put a huge amount of the government for us to be able to a democratic institution. I think sometimes some of the ascussions that happened is low amount of proportion outside. It needs to be considered that the Afghan Government is capable and has the constitutions and institutions that can handle those kinds of policy discussions. What we need to do is establish indigenous systems and support and what policies need to derive from the Afghan People. In afghanistan, we have the capability to be able to do that ourselves. Or 16 years, we cannot expect them to be institutions that have 100 years history. But we have the capability to be able to derive indigenous policies that serve the Afghan People without a lot of input from outside. Examplesappreciate the from other places and take that , but its not as if the Afghan Government takes all its policies itself and drives it. In 2014, when this ramp down of activities in afghanistan occurred for the u. S. , it was not just the troops that were leaving. You also had a bunch of advisors that left. Commercial access shea that was people in a lot of different departments in afghanistan from our u. S. Government removed the people, so what you are left with was if there was a rant down and something that was supposed to pick up on the other side, that was not what was happening. Muche time, i was very oriented towards the ministry of mining and petroleum, and, you get in there, and its crickets. What is left with them is the contracting capability. You could not actually go forward with them because you regardspered in many that you did not have the right tools to proceed forward. When we were talking about self sustainment, we were talking about mining or some other moneymaking ministry doing well, it would then reduce the funding going over there, were certainly not giving the tools to the Afghan Government to support that sort of growth. Instead of just talking about the troops that need to go back in there is advisors, we also need to talk about which other ministries and enterprises require that kind of advisory support, and im not talking orut these ad hoc visits westerners going there with 20,000 a month in jobs. Im talking about some kind of strategy that could build the capacity. The second thing for political issues look, i think a lot of people comment, quite frankly, on afghanistan without the reality added to the rhetoric. Your point has been echoed a bunch of times in afghanistan from the perspective of you have disunity in the National Unity government. Even the National Unity government accepts that there is only one president. The chief executive is supposed to be there to assist. But we make it sound as if 50 50, and it is not in the constitution that exists right now. As an observer of afghanistan and you are a participant in , we put some false expectations in that system that i think ultimately end up being disappointment on our part and disappointment on their part. Can i ask about the importance of International Economic aid for afghanistan and its economic stability and how you see that as complementary to the Security Mission in afghanistan . Is there a different model that can be pursued, or do we need to maintain the current level of economic aid . Thank you. Can i take some time to formulate the thought . I dont want you to feel like i am dominating. We tendoure not, but to think aid and mostly for their wish we were talking trade. In many regards, we are not using something as a connector to something else. China goes in and says china, Pakistan Economic corridor, 50 billion. Himalayas, and they start mapping out Different Things they are doing along the way. They recognize that energy is a serious problem, so they will focus on energy. A serious problem, and this is china. U. S. , u. K. , western world and classes, orng about we talk about can we possibly have some scholarships, which is important, by the way, for the which isuniversity, something that needs to come back and needs to come back strong and needs to be secure and everything else, but we talk but we do nothip, talk about creating a Mining Center or Engineering Program that talk about the brains that will put some of these resources inghanistan afghanistan first. By the way, we also have to ask the afghans what they need. I agree with what he said on priorities and how it should be distributed. I think theres a lot of comparisons and parallels drawn between europe and afghanistan money is being moved. We missed a couple of things. One, there was no terrorism in europe and we were not fighting so all of our money was spent on development. Second, all of that money was spent on how we revise the european economy and spent in coordination with the government to be able to present to turn them around. That has not been the case in afghanistan. Case has not been on budget and is not accordance with what the needs of the government are. In many cases, it is what the donor agency wishes to spend money on. Even if they are spending money if it is in accordance to what the afghan priorities , the Afghan Government can sustain it. Forave seen schools built whom the Afghan Government did not have the budget to sustain it. Aided in the afghan context would generally be more efficient if we spend it on with the Afghan Government needs. Are brought this up before, but there would be a lot more direct investment if private companies were able to hire the run security to direct themselves and also reduce the strain on the military itself. Is there any sign on the horizon that there will be a change in the policy on the ability of the private sector to hire their own security . We need to make sure that security the afghan forces. It is in our interest, and we wish to continue to provide as much security as we can to the private enterprises. Its not the main deterrent. It isot of the cases, making sure that their investments are secure, and we are doing everything we can to make it easier for businesses to do business in afghanistan, and, security is, of course, our priority, not just for businesses or investments that are coming, but for all of our population, and we must do it in accordance to the bigger plan on how we can bring security to all of afghanistan. Every afghan life is important to us and we must bring security to all of afghanistan, not just a specific sector. Mr. Ambassador, how are we the afghangrow economy, turn it around, when we have had the terrible revival of young peoplemany with skills have left the country, and many called me up looking for jobs. And can the government International Community do to help turn the economy around . Creating jobs is an important factor. Some policies have started to pay off. We had an Investment Close to 1. 1 million, including building factories which would afghans soobs are they could stay in afghanistan and have those economic , to benities for them able to provide jobs within the country that also prevents that brain drain from happening. People must earn a living. If it is not in the country, they will see get outside. First of all, to elaborate on dougs point, i personally have not experienced a number of companies. The trouble most often is security in terms of their investment when they are dealing. Ith the Afghan Government a lot of people do not take due diligence, vetting local partners. They blame what happens later to a security situation, and, quite frankly, i think that is unfair. There is nothing i can add on the growth of the economy, but i will tell you that we, the American Government and folks that were involved in hold brain train, and outcome you why i keep getting request to sign papers for immigration visas. I cannot say how many to them to how many of them that they never worked as a translator and did not work for a u. S. Company, so why would i signed this for them, except someone else does, because later i will find that they are somewhere in the u. S. Dealing with something. Becomemigration visa has a real, you know, sort of rallying point for everyone who wants to pretend that they care about afghanistan because they care about their one interpreter. What about all the promises that were made to the villages to say that we are here, we are going to secure your village, we are going to do this stuff, but we left . There are a lot of promises not kept and i would much rather keep promises to the country than a few individuals. The second thing is every time some bomb goes off, you start thinking that that group needs to get some immigration visas. The judiciary system has been decimated with bomb after bomb after bomb. The attorney generals office, multiple times a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court about a month ago. Guess what happens immediately after . You know, those people need to get immigration visas. Its like how . If you give immigration visas to everybody who is worth something, they are not going to have anybody left. These people are taking a chance, actually doing something for their country. If you want to join the government, by all means, join the government. If you want to fight against people who are threatening your country, by all means. We will give you all the tools in the world, but if the answer to every problem is we will give you a way out i know this is a hard topic and people get emotional about it, but at the end of the day, we need to keep people there. We do not need to we need to create opportunities for them to stay there. We cannot just keep on giving them a parachute. When you throw out a parachute to everyone who is threatened, you will have a lot of threatened people in afghanistan. My first question is with three to it has been years. Do you think with the misunderstanding that the tin of countries have would be decreased . My second question is do you ever see india filling the gap . Pakistan as far as the friendship is concerned, do you see india taking a place in the relationship . Drugith regard to the trade and the opium in particular, mr. Ambassador said very little money of the opium trade goes to the taliban. Could you tell us where the rest of the money goes to . And have there ever been any big arrests made, like famous people being arrested for the drug trade in afghanistan . On the newspaper, afghanistan has one of the freest media. We do not put restrictions on. Ny media i have not heard this, but i will certainly look into that. If pakistan wants to build better relations with afghanistan, they had better do it through friendlier means. I think with the pakistanis have been trying to do they know through history will not work. A lot of what could have been pakistans influence in afghanistan would have been the closer relations, the boundaries, the history together. It still can be a source of their own influence rather than the negative environment, propaganda. The Afghan People, the they allow this to happen if they did not do it themselves. What kind of friendship is pakistan hoping to have in afghanistan . When one of your own is killed, it has a different kind of impact. One of our diplomats was recently killed on a family visit in kandahar. I cannot begin to explain the mood in our industry that has been since then. If pakistan wants to have influence, this is not the way. Again, investing in taliban is wrong. Like i said, criminal networks that are exploiting people, extorting money from people, they are not serving anything. Networknot the kind of that pakistan should or can have in afghanistan. Left. Have six minutes we are going to bunch three questions from the back. My question is about afghanistan without addressing pakistan support, the taliban. Nd other terror organizations if yes, how . If not, what specific strategies to you suggest moving forward . David borden with stop thedrugwar. Org. Do you have recommendations on the on how to approach the opium narcotics trade . Thank you. Concerns me and hundreds of other afghan women, many of are meeting, how to make sure they are not giving away our lives. Pakistan, lives, and reconciliation with one of the resistancethe afghan , who soviets have accused of being a major human rights abuser. It depends on who you talk about with to the Afghan People, there is no other option. We must win. We are not going to allow terrorism to win in that country , and that is the resolved that the Afghan People have and will continue to have. I do not see any other option. On the narcotics trade, i think , one of the ways to weaken terrorisms is to cut their funding sources, and the narcotics trade, as small as it the globalared to take, it is still one of the largest sources of their income and must be treated as such. The afghan constitution rights, anduman that is what we will never compromise on. While reconciliation is important, brings security and stability to the country, we will never compromise on the basic human rights we have seen guaranteed by our constitution. First of all, on the winnable thing, i do not think any of us would be here if we did not think it was winnable. The strategy forward i think needs to be changed. I do not believe in this population centric counterinsurgency. It is a very that, quite out as, has been thrown a doctrine, but, in fact, it has not really stood out in reality, if we need to check ourselves and have a heavy dose of introspect, i think a good example of winning is what has happened in colombia. They have dealt with counter narcotics as a major issue. They have dealt with training indigenous forces. They have dealt with a heavy of the country under insurgent control. They have dealt with other aligned actors on the borders that they have had to deal with and safe havens. There are models. We are just not really paying that much attention to it. In terms of the training, i think a lot of people think we need to have more trainers out more in order to have combatants out there and therefore have more medevac capability and closer support if our guys are there. I think that is also false. I think we need to be preparing the Afghan Military to do the heavy lifting. Quite frankly, we do not need to be out there that much. It is not going to eventually get them to the level they need to be at if that is our game plan, but we need to give them the tools. The last thing i will say, and i think it is at the end, so maybe i will cut my commentary very quickly, is lets not forget the not wearing aare uniform. We are desperately needing some advisors that focus on the moneymaking ministries. Over concentration on purely the Security Issues has been a real problem for 15 years. I hope we change that. Thank you very much. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] narrator next on cspan, a look at federal workers and the current enteral hiring freeze. Then a discussion on the mortgage industry and the future of fannie mae and freddie mac. Rural officials from communities on infrastructure issues