Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20131027 : compar

met her future husband, who was sick. they got married 30 years later. reputation, resident truman nicknamed her the boss and she made public appearances. her -- hisld edited speeches and earned a salary in his staff office. a look at bess truman on "first " on c-span, c-span 3, as well as c-span radio. and offering of the special edition "first ladies of the united states of america." there are comments from noted historians. it is available for the discounted price of $12.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/products. there is also a special section "locum to the white house." -- "welcome to the white house." you can find out more at c- span.org/firstladies. c-span, we bring public affairs and events from washington directly to you, hitting you in the room at congressional hearings, andfings, conferences, complete gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. >> tonight on c-span comment or floridathe house representative bill young, who died last week, followed by a discussion on the future of afghanistan. later, using drone strikes and u.s. foreign policy. last week, the house took up a build to name the v.a. medical center in florida after the late representative will young, who died recently at the age of 82. it should be on the floor came from both democrats and republicans. this is about 40 minutes. >> to a purpose does that gentlewoman from florida wish to be recognize? >> i ask for immediate consideration. 384he house resolution resolve that the house here is a offound sorrow the death of honorable bill c.w. young, that a committee of the speakers of the house, together with such members of the senate, attend the funeral. resolved that the sergeant at arms of the house be authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions and be paid out of applicable accounts of the house. resolved that the clerk communicate these resolutions to the senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased. resolved that when the house adjouurns today that it were adjourns as a mark of respect to the deceased. >> without objection, the resolution is agreed to an motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman of new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that they may be considered to be the first sponsor of hr 2248, a bill and reduce by marquis of matches who just -- by markee of massachusetts. >> without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause eight of role 20, to suspend the rules on what they recorded vote or the yea's and nay's are ordered. all on which the boat anchors -- vote anchors objection under clause six of role 20. any record vote on the postponed notion will be taken later. what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? to name the department of veterans affairs medical center in florida as the c.w. bill young department of veteran affairs medical center. >> hr 3302, a bill to name the department affairs medical center in florida at the c.w. bill young department of veterans affairs medical center. >> pursuant to the rule, the gentlemen from florida, esther miller, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown, each will controlled way minutes. the chair recognizes the german from florida. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members five remarks and include any extraneous material that they have on hr 3302. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> the way very much, mr. speaker. today is bittersweet as we mark both the passing of a congressional stalwart, chairman c.w. bill young and name the medical center in his honor. mr. speaker, while the rock numbers themselves may seek volumes for his dedication to america, it is his personal qualities that i admired the most. when i came to congress in 2001, bill young was one of the first members that welcomed me here, it was on this floor in this chamber that bill young introduced me to the members of this house the night i was sworn in. since then, i came to regard him not only as a mentor, not as a colleague, but a friend, a personal friend. chairman young served the 13th district of florida and the people of the united states for over 42 years. he was the senior member of the florida original delegation and was the senior republican in both the house and in the senate. counting his ears and the florida legislature, bill young served over 50 years in public service and worked with eight presidents. bill will be most remembered for his devotion to america's defense and especially to the men and the women in the armed forces. having served in uniform for 15 years at the number of the national guard and reserves, bill was the go to guy on defense issues here in the house. he dedicated his legislative and personal energies to improve the quality of life or the men and the women who serve, and as a result, those who wear the uniform and face our foes have improved housing today, better medicare care, increase pay, and the best equipment. members know bill best for his work as chairman of the house appropriations committee from 1999 to 2005, and he continued to serve as chairman of the subcommittee of defense until this time of his passing. but bill young was much more than a defense expert. he has also been a leading advocate for increased medical research. bill worked to double medical research funding and funding to increase immunization rates for preschoolers, to improve public health programs, and to find cures for parkinson's and alzheimer's disease. just one example -- the c. w. bill young marrow donor recruitment and research program registry lists more than 9 million volunteer donors for patients with leukemia and other life-threatening diseases. that simple lists has provided the gift of life to more than 50,000 individuals. to completely describe the contributions of a man who served in this body for over 42 years would take hours, so with that, mr. speaker, on behalf of the entire florida delegation and all those who knew and served with him in this house and in the other body, i offer our most sincere condolences to his wife, beverly, and his sons rob, billy, and patrick. he was your husband, and he was your father. to us, bill was a friend. we will miss him dearly. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. one of my favorite songs is let the work i've done speak for me. i rise today to pay tribute to chairman bill young, whose passing we mourn and whose dedication american serviceman is well known to floridians as well as to all who served in the house of representatives. taking care of our nation men and women in uniform was his passion. he often called them kids because he care for them as deeply as they were his family. chairman young was an officer and a gentleman. he served for nine years in the american national guard. during his decade in congress, he and his wife, beverly, regularly visited the combat troops in florida and here in bethesda. they have arrange travel for military family members of those who are having trouble. here in the house at the appropriations committee in any other way he could find, he was tireless in his work on behalf of serviceman, veterans, and their families. i worked with him when we were having to finish a new courthouse. this was just after the oklahoma city bombing, and all of the new security requirements that was added to protect the building and the people in them. the project was $9 million over budget, but the chairman came to the longest town hall meeting ever held here on the capitol. everyone had to say the chairman was a gentleman as always and wanted what was best for the people of florida regardless of party. this was the case also when it came to funding for research. chairman young knew how important cutting-edge research was and making it a pro-ready to find the funding to -- priority to find the funding to help future generations of americans. every year, bill young was a keynote speaker at the memorial day program in bay pines he worked with gerald ford and the appropriations committee in 1976 to replace their original hospital building. at one point, he was a far as to personally show the president where the building was and how badly it was leaking. he was very proud of the new hospital, which opened in 1983. he was thrilled when they named the road encircling at the bill young road. the va medical center at bay pines has services to complete, but in addition their service work for care givers, dental service, extension care, and service for seniors along with programs that help homeless vets. in addition, the women's veterans health care program at bay pines focuses on wellness, education, preventative health care, disease management, and care for the emotional well- being of women veterans. today, we will go one step further and honor the man who made the va medical center at bay pines a reality. today, we take a step of naming the whole facility after bill young. it is a most appropriate tribute to name the center whose mission it is to coordinate the care for wounded men and women who serve their life. mr. speaker, as we say goodbye to our friend and colleague, chairman bill young, with this bill, we could honor his service in the way and he would appreciate most deeply. have his name associated daily and dreck late the highest level of care for our military veterans. i want to thank committee chairman miller for bringing this forward, and i urge all of our parties to join me in supporting it. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i would like to yield one minute to ms. ross leyden. >> thank you so much, and i'm so pleased of the gentleman from florida, chairman miller, has given me some time, and i'm so pleased to support his bill that he has gotten the entire florida delegation working in a bipartisan manner to honor this good man and warm friend, congressman bill young. bill was a true patriot and a tenacious public servant, dedicating his life to his constituents. as you heard from some of our previous speakers, his accomplishments are so varied and many, creating a national bone marrow registry of improving the quality of life for active duty personnel, our national guard, our reserves, veterans. protecting thousands of jobs in his area, preserving mcgill air force base, improving florida's environment. these are just some of bill -- some of bill's many accomplishments. he was always willing to lend a helping hand to members of our entire state delegation with projects that were him portman in our local community. for example, he helps me to find the funds to dredge the miami river. >> i give the lady an additional 30 seconds. >> thank you. to help the air force base after he was devastated by hurricane andrew, but more importantly, he was the consummate gentleman. he was principled, honest, maintaining civility with his colleagues, a trait that we no longer honor as we should. bill was an example for all of us here in congress. it was my privilege and my high honor to serve with him. what a great privilege. i think the gentleman for yielding me be time. >> time is expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. >> i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you for yielding. bill young was my friend. bill young was a gentle man in every sense of the world. bill young was an example for us all. i will have the privilege of speaking on thursday at his request at his funeral. the bill and i served on the appropriations committee for 23 years together. i left when i became majority leader. bill young was, as i said, a gentle man, who cared about each and every individual in this house. more than that, he cared for each and every person who served in uniform in our armed forces. he and beverly displayed that, as congressman miller has said, on a weekly, daily basis. i am a democrat, bill was a republican. it is not make any difference. he was an american, i was an american, and we serve our country together. no one served a better than no young. -- than bill young. he chose to see our differences as slight, and our common purpose as great. he always chose civility over partisanship. he was a skilled legislator on behalf of the people of florida, on behalf of his country. on behalf of the members of the armed forces, and the defense of this country. he was a champion of veterans and their families, all of whom, where everybody lives, he viewed as his constituents. this bill to rename the va hospital in bay pines florida, which i am proud to cosponsor, is a fitting tribute to his devotion to our veterans and our troops. though he represented longer than any member of the house in this industry, he was originally from a coal mining town in pennsylvania. it was there he learned many lessons of the hardships of family and to learn that what they need would be in their reach. he never forgot that. he was a great member of this body. a very powerful member of this body. an extraordinary influential american. but to all of us, he was built. -- he was bill. to all those he came in contact, he was bill. he was a person who understood the needs, fears, aspirations, hopes of his people and the people of our country. my thoughts are with beverly, was bill young's family, the people of florida's 13th district. this house has lost a great member. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i like to yield one minute to mr. mica. >> it is absolutely fitting that we take this step and name our veterans hospital and the west coast of florida after a great american, a patriot, a hero for our reverence, bill young. -- for our veterans, bill young. probably more than anyone in the house of representatives of congress, i have known bill young, i think longer. he and i were both aides to the first republic and congressman since the civil war, bill kremer. he was an aide before i was, but we met together and work together more than 40 years ago. so i rise to nine not only as a colleague but as a personal friend and political ally of a great human being, someone with -- who put his heart and soul into this position, who loved our servicemen and women, and his great legacy will be all he has done to honor their memory, and tonight we honor his memory with renaming bay pines veteran hospital for bill young, my friend. i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. >> to record at this time, i would like to yield three minutes of the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop. >> the gentleman is recognized -- is recognized. >> i rise to rename the bay pines veterans affairs metal center in florida -- medical center in florida to the c. w. bill young department veterans affairs medical center. i am honored to join over 200 of my house colleagues as an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, a great tribute to one of our dearest colleagues. indeed, bill young will be forever known as one of the strongest supporters of our military and veterans in the history of this congress. his unyielding support of our military and veterans is legendary. likewise, he was a true champion for his district and a fountain of knowledge about the chronicles of the u.s. house of representatives. bill young will be missed in washington as well as in florida. he along with late congressman jack murtha, were not only great friends and mentors to me but their wives, beverly and joyce, were also friends of my wife, vivian. chairman murtha and chairman young were neither democrat nor republican when it came to our national defense. regardless of which was the chairman or ranking member of the subcommittee, the men and women of america's military would be taken care of. i am proud to have served as a member of the house appropriations subcommittee on defense under both of these great leaders. bill young's death, the nation has truly lost one of the few remaining statesman. our thoughts and prayers are with beverly and the entire family. congress and our nation have lost one of its greatest statesman. i have lost a dear friend and a mentor. while we could use every word in every language spoken by mankind, we will not have enough words combined to adequately think bill young for his service. but i am pleased to join my colleagues in passing this resolution to rename the bay pines medical center in florida the c. w. bill young department of veterans affairs medical center. it has been said that you make your living by what you get. you make your life by what you give. bill young gave so much to so many for so long. he will be greatly missed. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i would announce tonight that we had 379 original cosponsors of this piece of legislation. i would like to now recognize the vice-chairman of the veterans affairs committee, the gentleman from florida whose district above mr. young, for one minute. >> thank you so much. 379 cosponsors. what a testament to her and what a wonderful man. mr. speaker, i rise today to support this legislation. over the past five decades, chairman young selflessly serve florida and the tampa bay area, leading many initiatives to promote economic growth, create jobs, of which his contributions to the military and veterans in particular are immeasurable. in the 1970's, the chairman played a significant role in winning critical funding for the bay pines medical center, which allows the facilities to support almost 100,000, mr. speaker, 100,000 of our heroes in our area today. with this funding come up bay pines was able to increase the size of its campus, replace the hospital, and now offers a wiper 80 of services -- a wide variety of services to these veterans in their backyard because of chairman young. chairman young has left behind a rich legacy in support of our heroes, especially those in the tampa bay area. by renaming this important facility in his honor, we will provide a lasting monument to her member a great friend. chairman bill young. thank you, and i yield back. >> i reserve the balance of our time. >> the judgment from florida reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. >> i would like to yield three what minutes to the gentlewoman from florida whose district went up to bill young's district. >> the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. >> i thank the gentlewoman for you later time. i rise in strong support of designating bb pines be a medical center in -- the bay pines va medical center in pinellas the c. w. bill young medical center. i would like to thank congresswoman brown and all of our colleagues for honoring bill young with such a designation. i have been fortunate to serve alongside of bill young for the seven years that i have been here, seven out of the 43 years that mr. young served in the congress. we represented st. petersburg and the tampa bay area together. i know i speak for my predecessors jim davis and sam gibbons, who also passed last year, when i say that congressman bill young was an outstanding partner for the state of florida. it is very appropriate that we honor bill young by naming the bay pines va medical center after him. he was a fixture at the ceremonies every year, but more importantly, he was a fixture when there was no ceremony, when he would visit wounded soldiers in the hospital or at their homes, when there was no fanfare and he just determined that it was just his desire to ensure that the servicemembers and their families receive the care that they deserve and that they had earned. many facilities at the air force base in tampa are state of the artist due to mr. young's extra attention, and i very little to the healthy right to me when the soldiers and civilians who work there were any. for example, in the past year, he was at our efforts, and mac dill means mobility when it comes to attention at the base. when it was not assisting former servicemembers and their families who qualify for medicare health services, he helped cut through the red tape. many also would point to his expensive earmarks in a variety of ways. our drinking water reservoir is the bill young reservoir. medical research at the university of south florida, programs that st. petersburg college, programs that eckerd college, and we are so proud that mr. young initiated the national bone marrow donor program at the children's hospital in st. petersburg. it was through mr. young's leadership that the bay pines va medical center was great. it is now the fourth-largest in the country. it serves veterans all across west central florida and employees of many talented caregivers. so it is a fitting tribute to this remarkable american to name the the pines va medical center in his honor, and i'm proud to co-sponsor the resolution. congressman young was a model statesman. his kindness, sincerity, and for our nation's many women in uniform and veterans will be missed. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. >> i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. you know, we literally could be here days speaking about the many accomplishments of chairman young, and those days would not suffice. i got a chance to work with him on the appropriations committee, and i will tell you that so many times i went to him for advice, for help. leon was one of those people you always went to -- bill young was one of those people you always went to when you needed help. he was such a wise man. as i said a little while ago, since we would never have enough time to talk about all his great compliments. and you have heard not only but his accomplices with the fact that he was an incredibly honorable, caring, wise, and statesman is a word that comes to mind. since my time is limited, i just want to echo something that i heard -- i am not quite sure who said it, but i read it to be a great man, you first have to be a good man. if there is anybody that that phrase reminds us of, it is bill young. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized or twice i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, ms. jackson lee. >> the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> i would like to thank the gentlelady from florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee of veterans, ms. brown, and i would like to thank chairman miller. we were together, and thank you summary much. i wanted knowledge as well the ranking member of the appropriations committee, ms. lowing, thank you for allowing me to share this evening. the comments and the appreciation and respect i have for bill young. first of all, i would like to say what everybody else has had -- what a great american, what a great patriot. what a great public servant. and bill, may you rest in peace. bill is on the floor, congressman young, chairman young, was on the floor of the house just a few weeks before he passed, and i think that is important to note that he was working every single day to make america better. he loved soldiers and veterans, he loved their families, and it is highly appropriate for him to have his name so honored, named as a veterans hospital. i want to say that it is particularly important to note that congressman young was able to speak to kings and queens and generals and people of high places, but he was best when he was talking to everyday people, to the soldier said he loved. he came from humble beginnings starting with his single parent, his mother, losing his home early in life, living in a hunting camp. you would think that he would not be the generous person he is today, but he is really what america's all about -- the american dream. i've are member his commitment to our soldiers and his easy ability to work across the aisle. as someone who advocated for soldier suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, i want to let his family know how dedicated he was to resigning extra resources to the thousands upon thousands of soldiers who returned from iraq and afghanistan who needed extra help with posttraumatic stress disorder. he was very kind to those of us who are concerned about breast cancer and women in the u.s. military who may have experienced breast cancer. and working with me at session, in fact, the last two sections, to provide -- >> [inaudible] >> i thank the gentlelady. and he worked with them in last two sections -- two sessions, mr. speaker, and providing extra funding for ptsd, a center that is in houston, texas, but also dealing with additional research for triple negative breast cancer that might have an impact not only in the military population of women but also with women around the nation. bill is like that. always extending, always sharing. he has a special place in my heart because my mother is from st. petersburg florida, but i was that he should have a special place in the hearts of all americans because if you ever want to see exemplified a grant and stately gentleman who had nothing in his heart but the love and respect and admiration for this nation, it was our dear friends, the honorable bill young. to his family, i say to them -- we love him, and we extend our deepest sympathies. thank you, my dear friend, you have served well, and i hope that you will rest well. may god bless him and god bless his family. i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i now yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. >> the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to join the chorus of people remembering our friend and the chairman of the defense subcommittee of appropriations, bill young. chairman young come as you know, spend five decades of his life in this chamber fighting for a better america for both his constituents and our country. as the dean of the republican conference, he was a leader and a counsel to colleagues young or old, republican or democrat. mr. speaker, i am the newest member of the defense subcommittee of appropriations. i was fortunate to receive his mentor ship. i learned from his fearless, unparalleled support of our troops and our veterans, and i admired his outspoken and unwavering commitment to what was in their best interest. mr. speaker, a veteran myself of over 30 years, i was also a beneficiary of his incredible support of those who wear the uniform. while his presence will be forever missed, the bill young department of veterans affairs medical center will serve as a small and fitting reminder that this institution of our men and women in uniform, and america are undoubtedly better off because of bill young, and i'm proud to support it. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> city toledo time we have no? -- can you tell me how much time we have now? >> the gentlelady has 4.5 minutes, the gentleman has 10.5 minutes. >> thank you. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. louis. >> the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill. for more than 40 years, bill young served his district in this institution with integrity and honor after having served our country in the army national guard for nearly a decade. as chairman of the appropriations committee, his leadership, advocacy for our men and women in uniform and our veterans was unsurpassed. in a time when political culture too often devolves into hostility, and compromise is a dirty word, bill young was always a gentleman who consistently reached across the aisle. he would share with me his visits with his dear wife, beverly, to wounded warriors to bring them comfort. how happy those visits made him and it was such a pleasure to serve with him. he will be truly missed. renaming this va facility in his memory is a tribute to his legacy. he will be missed. rest in peace. god bless you, and god bless america. >> the lady yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> we have no more speakers requesting time and we are prepared to close its ms. brown is prepared. >> the gentlelady is recognized her >> thank you, mr. speaker. recognized.elady is >> thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, let me thank chairman miller for organizing this tribute to chairman young. in closing, you know, i often say when you are born, you get a birth certificate, and when you die, you are going to get a death certificate. that little dash in between is what you have done to make this a better place. i don't know anyone that has done more than chairman bill young. it has been my honor having the opportunity to serve with him, his leadership for the florida delegation. i mean, we have gone for some tough times, but i can tell you he has always been a gentleman. when i first began, i said one of my favorite songs is let the work i've done speak for me. clearly he has done his work, and he has fought a good fight, and he has done his job. it is left up to us to continue his great work, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i want to thank all the members on both sides of the aisle for their kind words that they've set for our friend, bill young. i sincerely hope that the words give beverly, rob, bill young patrick some measure of consolation. while we know a log or have bill's personal and wise counsel to go to, that beautiful veterans medical center will bear his name, and it will give witness to his many years of service to america and her defenders. i want to thank my good friend, ms. brown, for her help in bringing this bill to the floor and the over 375 cosponsors that we have brought on this piece of legislation. i respectfully ask all members to join us in supporting this piece of legislation, hr 3302, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back the balance of this time. the question is -- will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill hr 3302? in the opinion of the chair, two thirds being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is pastored without -- is passed without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] voice house passed by a vote to name the v.a. center in florida after c.w. bill young. and now moves to the senate for consideration. you eventswe bring from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering to play coverage of the u.s. house. i'll as a public service of private industry, c-span, created by the tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite providers. you can watch us in hd. next comment cbs news lara logan moderates a discussion on that afghanistan future as the year as down its commitment at year.d of the it is about an hour. >> welcome, everybody. i think you have had a long morning already. we are going to liven it up a little bit on the stage. if anyone still cares about afghanistan, i am assuming that is why you are here, and you are going to pay full attention to what these gentlemen have to say. it struck me when i was doing my research and preparation for today that the thing about the panel you have in front of you is that afghanistan is well represented. each of these individuals have a good knowledge of the situation on the ground there, especially historically. everyone has a depth of reporting in the region. what you also have is individuals who are very familiar and specialist in all the issues at stake. seth jones worked with special operations command. he has a very close view of the military strategy. counterterrorism is one of his fields of expertise. you also have a specialist on asia, and particularly india. he can bring in the india perspective. india has a significant role to play in afghanistan, and it has not been at the forefront of the u.s. strategy in that region over the last decade. of course, dr. kagan is best known for his work in iraq, although he and septra both been at rand corporation. what you have here today is an opportunity to remind ourselves what is at stake in afghanistan, and why the u.s. should care. the first question i was given was to ask what was at stake. but i want to put it in a much more pointed way. over the last couple years, the term war has become unpopular in washington. in fact, from the cia to the white house, it has been made very clear that we have been using the term war for war on terror, and it was probably a mistake. i am conscious of the fact that every other day, i get another casualty report from the battlefield in afghanistan, where u.s. soldiers are still dying. as far as they know, they are still fighting a war. you have an afghan election coming up. you have united states pulling out of afghanistan, to a large degree. degree. you have a nation that has completely lost interest in what is going on over there, and is not given a reason to care by its leaders. behind the stage, we picked our first victim. he is going to begin this conversation. i have interviewed him before. i can promise you he is not boring. >> that is a very kind introduction. i will be brief. and then we will all discuss various aspects. i think we will have a useful q&a portion of this. let me highlight a few things. if you look at polling data, it is probably worth being upfront about this. according to a july poll from 2013, conducted by the washington post and abc news, 20% of americans believe the war in afghanistan was worth fighting. not just is, but was worth fighting. that differs significantly from october of 2001, the month after the september 11 attacks, when 90% of americans, 97% of republicans and 85% of democrats, supported u.s. military action in afghanistan. over the following decade plus, we have seen a huge drop in support about whether we should have gone there in the first place. i am going to argue, somewhat controversially, that i still strongly will argue, as we peered on the future, that the u.s. has said it is going to stop combat operations by december 2014. it is still not clear what that means. it has not been an announcement of what force number is going to look like. i am going to argue that four major factors should give one pause in exiting afghanistan. the first is, you would not know it by political statements. but al qaeda's global leadership today is still located in this region. afghanistan, pakistan. it has been weakened by drone strikes. we have seen that this week with the human rights watch report. it has been weakened. but in my view, a civil war or a successful taliban, -- taliban- led insurgency, would almost certainly allow al qaeda back into afghanistan and pakistan. i was just there last month along the border. there is still a presence of terrorists, including al qaeda fighters. virtually everyone i spoke to involved in targeting them, people i have worked with in the past, have said they will be there after 2014. there is concern in some areas of the east. they may be there in larger numbers. the global leadership is still there. there are a number of sunni jihadist in the region that are not going away. some of them, including the taliban in pakistan, put an suv in times square. another conducted a major terrorist attack in mumbai. there is still a terrorism issue. the civil war or a successful taliban-led insurgency would deal a severe blow to human rights, including women's rights. the taliban would likely reverse progress in a country that has experienced an extraordinary improvement in the number of female business owners, government officials, primary, secondary, and university students. you would see a major backlash. third, burgeoning war in this region would likely increase instability with india, pakistan, iran, and russia, and i am going to add china to this. all have nuclear weapons or a nuclear program. there is a concern about regional instability, particularly between pakistan and india. i conclude by saying a u.s. exit from this country would likely foster a perception about u.s. reliability. when you look at al qaeda statements recently, i am going to leave you with one final thought. an american exit from afghanistan -- we have already seen this in jihadist networks. if it were to happen, it would likely be viewed and trumpeted by extremist groups, including al qaeda, as their most important victory since the departure of soviet forces from afghanistan in 1989. that is a very, very dangerous legacy we have to think very carefully about. we could talk about how to proceed later, but let me leave you with that thought. >> you were nodding your head at a few points there. i know the nuclear issue is one you have spent a lot of time on. can you take the floor? >> i would be happy to start by emphasizing a point seth just made. the american and international project in afghanistan over the last several years has been far more successful than people give us or the afghans credit for. remember, this is a country that went through several decades of violent war. every state and societal institution was essentially destroyed. when you look at afghanistan today, what you actually have is a constitutional regime of the kind that was simply impossible to succeed under the high tide of soviet occupation and the painful years after. you are now looking at a country that has the potential to build on a structure that, if improved and invested in, can actually provide more opportunities, including for those currently opposing the state. just recognizing that this has been a success, you can put together a structure where all you had before was an anarchy. >> americans do not care about that, because their leaders keep telling them the afghans are corrupt, dishonest, unreliable, that karzai is an unreliable partner. they are never given a reason to believe in anything the u.s. has achieved in afghanistan. >> i think the facts refute that on the face of it. development indicators in afghanistan today are better than they have been in a long time. corruption is endemic to all third world societies. afghanistan is by no means either particularly egregious or unique. the question is not whether one needs to bail out afghanistan because it has the maladies of an underdeveloped state, but whether we can persist consistently in afghanistan, not necessarily for the sake of afghanistan alone, but because it fundamentally comports with our own interests. those interests come back to the same interests we went into afghanistan to begin with in 2001. there is still an unresolved security problem in afghanistan that directly affects the well- being of the american people, and those of our allies. >> is there anyone on this panel who would disagree with that? >> not me, for sure. i think that as we think about afghanistan and why it matters, there is a tendency to treat it in isolation, to have this discussion as though the discussion we were having is whether we should put troops into afghanistan or not. when people say it is not worth it for us to be there, why should we go into afghanistan if we are not going into yemen, the problem is that you start from reality where you actually are. we have been in afghanistan. we have made an enormous effort in afghanistan. we have made an enormous amount of progress. there is a force getting after our enemies. this is taking it to al qaeda and allies. they are doing that increasingly. but they will not be ready in 2014 to take over that responsibility without american assistance, because they were not designed for that role, anymore than iraqi security forces were designed to be ready to take over responsibility. >> domestic political deadlines? >> it was a negotiated deadline with the iraqis that originated with us. in the case of afghanistan, it also originated with us, but has become an international deadline the afghans hold us to. but they are arbitrary deadlines, and were tied to the situation on the ground. i bring up iraq, recognizing how painful it topic it is. just because something is painful does not mean we should talk about whether it is important. talking about the path to zero, the model is iraq. iraq worked out pretty well. there is no reason we should not do that in afghanistan. iraq is a catastrophe, which has gone unreported. you have now a franchise that is back to the level of car bombing that it is conducting at the height of the surge in 2007, before the violence came down. that has all happened since american forces withdrew. the administration line is, we do not need to worry about it. it is in a place called iraq, and we do not believe in that. >> they fly the flag of al qaeda. they read statements in the name of al qaeda. >> they set up these islamic emirates, and they fly al qaeda flags and have foreign fighters. >> it is everything they have to say about who they are. >> and everything we know about who they are. what the administration is trying to do -- this is important. the administration is trying to define the threat from al qaeda down to be only those individuals who were either involved in the 9/11 attacks or part of the organization at the time. if you want to picture, in the white house somewhere, a poster that has the faces of all those people on it, with x through phases of people we have taken -- faces of people we have taken down, i think that is pretty much administration strategy. the problem is, the world has changed since 9/11, and al qaeda has, although in some cases it has not. >> you have people, like at guantánamo, who went from afghanistan to sudan, back to afghanistan. and he was handed back to the libyans, he was released by gaddafi, founded an organization in the east of libya, and we no longer call him al qaeda. he is one of the original al qaeda members. we want to now say he is a link or associated group. even having a pedigree that goes back 30, 40 years is not enough to get you called al qaeda today in washington. >> right. and we spend too much of our time thinking about who is currently planning to attack the united states. and not enough time thinking about what capabilities the global al qaeda movement has to attack the united states over the long-term, and what are we doing to address those capabilities, and the spread of those ideologies. >> i want to put two things to you. i think you and i were both there from the beginning. and we remember what people today in america seem to have forgotten, which is the promises the united states made when they came into afghanistan. to me, this is a very important point, because it speaks to integrity, honor, loyalty, and the nature of being a good ally. this was raised a little bit by you. the reason i find it so significant is that i think when we think of the united states and what it is meant to stand for and represent, it is very hard to look afghans in the eye today and say that we are honorable people who keep our word. we have lost interest in keeping our word. the afghans are not fooled. mean -- you know you -- you know when you have been betrayed or let down. that is the majority of how the afghans feel. in thiswe end up position where afghans feel betrayed and we feel that we wasted our efforts? betrayed and we feel like we wasted our efforts. >> the united states has promised much and it has given us -- given much. we did not talk about how well it was used and what the right strategies were. i will be the first one to say that big mistakes were made over that time. we look afghans in the eye in 2001 and said we will be committed to reducing, if not eliminating, terrorist groups operating from this region. we will stay until that objective is met. what we have now said is, sure, that objective has not been met, but we are still leaving anyway. the blame has largely been placed on the karzai government. i will also say very bluntly that there have been massive corruption problems within the government. as there have been in any government in south asia. there have been challenges building national security apparatus. there has been corruption problems in the u.s. dealing with contracts in afghanistan. i would say, first and foremost not just to the afghan people, can we look the american people in the eye and say we have reached a point in afghanistan where the american homeland is safe, for now, and in the foreseeable future? i think the evidence, as i have spoken to operators on the ground from the region last month, suggests no, not at all. there are foreign fighters continuing to come into camps in the region. there is still active plotting. the leader of this organization is still headquartered in this area. this organization is not bad by any means. >> or decimated. >> or decimated. it is not on the verge of strategic defeat, as some would argue. >> i will come back to you. >> on the contrary, if you look at any portrayal of where all qaeda is today globally, it has a much larger footprint and a much more advanced organization than it did in 2001. also than it did in 2009. it is absolutely unjustifiable to talk about this organization as having been decimated. i want to follow-up on the issue of betraying the afghan people. it is very important. not just a question of american honor. nor is it just a question of, will other people believe in us, which is also especially after the syria debacle extremely important. and egypt, and many other things. and probably iran. but it is very important for practical reasons. what is al qaeda? not just a terrorist organization. it sees itself as the vanguard of insurgency in the muslim world. >> political revolutionaries. >> what is our ideal end state? that the muslim world defeat this insurgency. not only rejected, but defeated. in order for that to happen, we need people in muslim countries to stand up and fight against al qaeda. they have done that in iraq and afghanistan. i know that seth and i have been on the ground and spoken with iraqis and afghans who say, are you going to be there with us when these guys come back and try to kill her families? the fact that in iraq has been the answer has been "heck no," and we are having the answer in afghanistan about going to zero, that undermines the best possible outcome we could have in this struggle, muslim people rising up against this hateful ideology on their own. >> seth, you and i both know, the former spy chief of afghanistan told me years ago when i asked him about that, he said to me, he said afghanistan is a small, poor third world nation. we do not have any illusion, and we do not think for one moment we can influence the united states. but i will tell you this. i have been fighting these people long before you came to my country. these mountains were here before you. these rivers were here. and they will continue to flow after you are gone. he said the leader of the taliban, these are truly forces of darkness, and they cannot engender a vision for this world. so i will be fighting, whether or not you are. i found that to be true then and true today. what i love about it is this articulate afghan man, he put it so perfectly. the afghans were fighting al qaeda long before the u.s. was in battle with al qaeda. now we look at the afghans and say, you are on your own. i spoke this morning to someone on the ground in kabul, and the sense i have from the john kerry-karzai negotiations is neither of them are particularly committed to this agreement they have come up with. that is not good for us -- afghanistan and is not good for the u.s. can you pick up on that? >> is very important to recognize one simple fact. we cannot afford to let all qaeda and jihadist islam more generally enjoy another victory. i think there are many jihadists in afghanistan and around the world who believe they successfully confronted the soviet union and defeated it. that empowered the movement. it has become extremely dangerous for us, not only in south asia, but worldwide. it cannot and of leaving the rich -- region in the situation where they control the same conclusion that they have defeated the united states as well. that is something we have -- ought to keep in mind as a strategic consequence of the way we manage the transition. another point i want to make, getting afghanistan right does not require overinvestment on the part of the united states. it is important to understand that what we need to do for success in afghanistan does not require us to bankrupt the united states. it does not require an open- ended uncontrolled commitment of resources. >> which is unpopular. >> which is unpopular, and which is unnecessary, given the gains made in the last several years. what it does require is a responsibility, a consistency of leadership, and a willingness to hold out support until afghanistan can make the transition to being independent. >> how long are you talking? >> it is extremely hard to make that judgment. but we have to be committed to the principle that as long as the afghans are willing to put their foot to the pedal the united states will stand with them in making this possible. this is the kind of discussion we ought to have. in the abstract, discussions about the numbers of troops, discussions about lines of assistance, these haven't been helpful. we need to assure afghans that if they make their contribution the united states will not be found wanting. you discover the numbers are actually not as overwhelming as people think. i hope in the discussion that follows we get a chance to explore this. >> seth, i will say some listening to this might think, these guys are crazy. this is a done deal. we are out of there. not even going to consider anything other than how fast they can get out. >> one, the decision has not been reached. december 2014 is in theory the end of combat operations. what does that mean? has not been decided. i am a little bleak on whether this administration is committed to keeping a necessary footprint in afghanistan. this brings up an issue that we might disagree on somewhat. which is, what should we be doing? what should the footprint look like? i will briefly say -- state, these situations are very difficult -- different, but when i look around the world of where the u.s. has been able to deploy forces, whether it has been in the philippines or a range of other countries. philippines after 9/11, with a somewhat light footprint supporting local forces, i am not convinced at this point in the struggle that those numbers have to be higher. i think the u.s. could remain in afghanistan with a legal counterterrorism footprint that is joint special operations command forces. u.s. special operation forces and other conventional forces to do basic training, advising, and assisting. enablers, airpower, conducting strikes in case there are, in case there is pressure by the taliban or groups on a city. predator reiber capability that can collect intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. i look at numbers between eight and 12,000 u.s. forces -- 8000 and 12,000 u.s. forces that let afghans do the bulk of the fighting. the u.s. is largely in a supporting role, as being sufficient. >> the afghans are willing to do the bulk of the fighting. >> they have been. afghans have been taking multiples of the casualties american and international forces have been taking for quite some time. they are bleeding in this war, and they are continuing to recruit. i want to make one point about the numbers we talk about. we can come to different conclusions about feasibility. but there was a question, is this something we are prepared to say that if the requirement in afghanistan to achieve american vital national security interests is 15,000 troops, but the white house only wants to put 12,000 troops in their -- there, is the president prepared to say he is going to compromise vital american national interest over 2000 troops? is that a rational tabulation? are we prepared to say we will put in 12,370 five troops, but not one more? if we lose therefore, so be it? you ought to think that we have vital national security interest in afghanistan, in which case we would be well advised to put in the resources required to achieve that. or you do not, in which case we should not be there. >> what that reminds me of is general shin seki saying you need to hundred thousand troops to hold it before the iraq war. that was unpopular. it reminded me of general mcchrystal making a recommendation on numbers. before he made his recommendation -- political leaders seeking political advice from the military rather than pure military advice. even if you go back to afghan -- vietnam, that has always been the case, but no less troubling today. we have a question from the audience that was one of my favorite questions. it is something. i have been shot at from the pakistani side of the order. i pressed president bush are on this question. in one of -- president musharraf on this question. the cia said if you let them operate on pakistani soil they could find osama bin laden. i said, you are the president, you can say whatever you like. and where was osama bin laden found? who found him, by the way? i know this is something you spent a lot of time on. it is a question that i think is extremely important. president karzai annoyed a lot of americans saying, you're in the wrong villages, you should be across the border. what people still need to understand about what he is saying is you and i both know the problem lies in the safe havens in pakistan. you are not doing anything about it. so this question comes from peter with the american enterprise institute who says, american enemies have complete freedom of movement in pakistan. how can we defeat al qaeda without addressing the issue of pakistan? we cannot open up another front, we can't afford another war, but that suggest nothing can be done. what we have in pakistan is a failed policy. it was a failed policy under president bush, and it is failed policy under president obama. who wants to take that one? >> i can start. let me just start with what i consider to be the reality, which is the war in afghanistan, partly what we are talking about here, there are plenty of afghan taliban. 20 of individuals in afghanistan fighting. that said, it is worth noting very specifically that the command and control structures for every single insurgent group, every single major insurgent group, taliban, haqqani network, are all on the pakistan side of the border. that is where the command and control nodes are. the taliban's leadership structure sits in southern pakistan, in baluchistan. one level down in the organizational structure you have three regional committees. one is in cuetta, the the second, the third is an -- in waziristan. the borders are significant. when you look at the command- and-control nodes for al qaeda's global leadership, they also sit on the pakistan side. indeed, we spent a lot of time talking about afghanistan. there is an afghan dimension to it. it is important. but the command-and-control nodes for every major insurgent group sit on the other side. i will say that with both this administration and the last one there have been virtually no -- no major efforts, successful efforts, to target taliban leadership on the pakistan side of the border. there are no but -- drone strikes in baluchistan, virtually no individuals captured. that is where the taliban senior leadership is located. if we wanted to really get serious about this, and one has to take into consideration, why has little been done, and what are the implications of continuing to do virtually nothing about this? i can leave this to others to solve, but i want to get the threat and reality on the table. there is a very serious pakistan issue. >> can i add two points to that? i think we should at least entertain the hope that pakistan will recognize it is in its interest to do more than it has ever done before for a very simple reason. now that there is a realistic prospect the united states might leave, it could end up leaving behind and afghanistan that becomes a sanctuary for terrorists groups that are as much anti-pakistan as they are anti-afghanistan and anti-united dates. for the first time, pakistan has to confront a reality that afghanistan could begin to feed and funnel terrorist groups that undermine its own interest. we cannot count, however, on pakistan reaching the right conclusions from this. therefore, i think we need to rethink the character of our relationship with pakistan. to my mind, there is no alternative but to make the more contingent on pakistani behaviors that we have historically done. we can debate the details about how this contingency is to be expressed. but if you have a relationship with pakistan that in a fact conveys to them that no matter what late -- they do, american largesse will flow to pakistan on interrupted, you have created a situation they have no incentives to change. at the very least, the u.s. needs to look at itself and its own policies to think about how we might re-engagement pakistan. let me end by saying a word about india. india is deeply concerned that a premature american exit from afghanistan would end up leaving that country in exactly the way the indians pasted in the 1990's, essentially a sanctuary for terrorists groups that would move to attack indian interests. they have said they will do anything they can to prevent the current government of pakistan from being overthrown by force. we have to recognize realities. the indians do not have the capacity to substitute for the united states. they will look, like many allies, at the united states before they begin to show their hand. the surest way to lose all the regional allies who might be supportive of kabul is for the united states to run first to the exit. it comes back at the end of the day to consistency of policy and consistency of leadership. we should not be surprised to find afghanistan loses many of its regional partners. >> i have to say that i am less optimistic about pakistan than i am about afghanistan. i think there are things we can do in afghanistan to move it in the right direction. there are forces working in afghanistan moving in the right direction. pakistan is an enormously difficult problem. a country of 190 million people, approaching 100 nuclear weapons, and the largest concentration of terrorist groups anywhere in the world. it is clearly a problem. my question to be fully say, why are we in afghanistan when pakistan is the problem? you have to explain to me why tuition is helped by taking -- the situation is helped by taking a weekend -- weakened al qaeda taliban infrastructure in pakistan and making it wrong or by trying to persuade the pakistanis to fight the ramifications of that on their side. you cannot win this fight on either side of the line. the corollary is you cannot win in afghanistan if you lose in afghanistan. they are linked in that way. this is too often left out of our discussion entirely. one of the reasons to care about afghanistan is because of pakistan. >> and because of pakistan's nuclear weapons. >> yes. >> another question from the audience. he said, why blame our leaders when it is the media that constantly reports on corruption, failure programs, etc.? i would say we both their responsibility. without any question. the media is culpable. there is some good reporting on afghanistan. not nearly enough. there is some terrible reporting on afghanistan. what i would point out here to you is that the journalists writing about this stuff are getting calls from government officials who, by the way, love to leak things when they are the ones doing the leaking. they are very active in going after leakers when they do not like weeks because they -- leaks because they counteract the message. apparently the media does not seem to raise much of an objection about that. there is a lot lacking in the media. i take full responsibility for that. i would say to you, i did a piece about the return of al qaeda in afghanistan. the significance of what they were doing and how, for example, after bin laden was killed the announcement that came for his replacement came out of the defective headquarters of al qaeda in a -- afghanistan. the evidence is there, and not enough journalists are paying attention to it. that is definitely a factor. the people giving the message to our deliberately misleading our the leadership. that is what i hold them accountable for. when we look at the reality on the ground, it is different to the picture painted by the leadership. we all have a responsibility to be honest. not just the media and not just the politicians. policy is something we have not addressed well in the media. a failure of policy in afghanistan. a failure of policy in pakistan. when the afghans ask us what our policy is on pakistan, we do not even have one to tell them. certainly not one that makes any sense or gives them any confidence. we are very quick to hold the military accountable, as we should be. but no one seems to be as quick to hold the politicians accountable for their failures. the next question comes from the university of wisconsin. i think this is a fair point. with all the signs of progress cited by the panel, what percent of the afghan population is now part of a functioning modern state? we know there is no percentage. but that is not necessarily the benchmark of progress. i do remember an afghanistan the did not have one pane of glass from the length and breadth of the country. kabul today is pretty dramatically different today. >> the objective is not to establish a modern functional state in afghanistan. and that has not been the objective for quite a number of years. i had the privilege of serving on general mcchrystal pasha initial assessment review. we had a long conversation about what exactly the objectives should be. concluded, and this is what i believe the white house also believed and believes, that the objective is a state in afghanistan regarded as legitimately -- sufficiently legitimate by its people that the nature of the state is not fueling an active insurgency against it. the question is not whether kabul is going to look like washington or topeka. the question is whether the afghan people are going to accept the legitimacy of the government the way most people in most countries around the world and all countries that do not have insurgencies do. that is a different standard in different parts of afghanistan, as you know. when you go into valleys, they do not want any government. when you try to bring government to them you have a big problem. in urban centers, it is a very different situation. i think we have seen some progress. the corruption is important. the corruption has been a driver of instability for a variety of reasons and will continue to be. but we are looking for something that will satisfy the afghan people. that is what we have been driving toward, and as with the progress has been moving toward even though we do not recognize it as a kind of a monomeric -- most americans would want to live in. >> several of us have spent time over the years in afghanistan. how many types of states there are within it. there is a formal state apparatus that is based out of kabul that has ministries. the when you get in rural areas, you get an informal apparatus. this is a very different kind of structure. this is not the balkans. this is not germany after world war ii, or japan after world war ii. the state system is very different here. there is a limited central government and you get into southern afghanistan, for example, you have tribes, sub- tribes, clans, powerbrokers. the interesting thing is, over the first couple years of the struggle, how many resources the u.s. tried to push through the state system, including building a court apparatus and judges and things we think are near and dear to us. when you get into rural areas, justice is handed down through informal apparatus. leaders in a village will adjudicate disputes informally. this is not the united states. this is not western-style state apparatus. part of the issue, i think we need to be a little careful about what we are trying to construct and what we should construct. i strongly second fred's point. one of the things that has struck me about the media , and lara, you have been a major exception, is how little people have look at the other side of the struggle. this is not just about focusing on what is going on within the u.s. within the afghan government. there are problems, like in any war. but look at the taliban side, they have had to establish and accountability commission because there has been corruption within the taliban. they are involved in the drug trade. they are involved in trafficking, in targeted assassination. roughly 75% to 80% of civilians killed are done by the insurgent side. one of the disservice is, i think, to the coverage of this war from the media perspective is when issues of corruption, the focus is on one side. the reality is this is a struggle within and among multiple different organizations that, and there are as many, if not more, challenges within the insurgency as there are within the government. everything from corruption to the inability of taliban forces to read. when people show me literacy rates among afghan forces i say, well, it is interesting to compare that, they are better than they are the insurgent side. you want to talk about comparison. that has been a bit of a disservice in the media coverage of the war. >> ashley -- >> i would make the point that afghanistan has always been a decentralized state. any mental model that things of afghanistan as a unity central state is using the wrong benchmark. the benchmark we ought to be using is a very simple one. for the average afghan, is security increased in the everyday circumstance of their lives? has there been a mechanism for dispute resolution and the administration of justice? are ordinary afghans able to conduct their economic activities without undue interference from the state? these are the metrics by which to judge progress. i think as both fred and seth said, the picture varies considerably depending on which part of afghanistan you go to. our objective has to make certain that the portions of afghanistan that have not established progress actually begin to grow and develop on the basis of the example set by their most vessel neighbors -- successful neighbors. >> this last question, i would like everybody to answer it. i'm going to take a question from the audience and add to it myself. we have here, i'm going to mess up your last name, from the christian science monitor. if the qaeda leadership is along the afghan-pack as -- afghan- pakistan border, does that mean the u.s. has lost this war? if we have not won the war in 12 years, what more can u.s. troops the cobblers? what i would like to add to that, there is a narrative that is pushed by the pro-taliban faction and by other people in washington that says the taliban does not have any beef with america beyond the fact you are in their backyard. there is no ideology. go home and we are done, it is over. those are the people who believe that the taliban and al qaeda's relationship can be questioned and pulled apart. i would put to that that of all the people from the taliban side who have been persuaded to give up arms, not a single one of them has ever publicly announce renounced al qaeda. not a single taliban leader, not the haqqanis, who have more than 30,000 fighters. what the military could achieve beyond 2013, 2014, 2015 -- why we should care, what are the consequences of coming home, why does it matter? >> you want me to take a crack at that? i think the most important thing we can do post-2014 is to help the afghan state take greater responsibility for the security of its own country. in practical terms, what that means our --are three things. first, standby afghanistan so it can negotiate with regional neighbors from some position of strength as opposed to simply becoming a victim to its more powerful neighbors. two, we have to help the afghan state overcome what will be a severe contraction in national gnp after u.s. and international forces cease to engage in security operations post-2014. nothing works if you do not have an economy that is at least moderately successful. anticipating the contraction in afghan gdp and working to mitigate it, at least until afghanistan to step -- stand on its feet, is the second important objective. the third is helping the ansf, the afghan national security forces, essentially succeed in the fight which is increasingly their own. the role we can play is not for the united rates and the international community to take the lead in funding. the afghans want to do that, are willing to do that. what we need to do is simply provide them the tools so that they can finish the job. >> let me just add to a couple of ashley's comments. i think one way to look at this is if you look at the last major ideological struggle that the u.s. was engaged in against the soviet union during the cold war, i do not want to draw too many parallels here, but it was a struggle in part against marxism and leninism. not just on the battlefield. if you were to ask yourself in 19 exceed, we -- 1960, we have been at this for 15 years after yalta. haven't we been doing this long enough, struggling in africa, in latin america, in eastern europe? if we sold out the opposition groups in poland in the 1960's and 1970's? the struggles not ashley and until the late 1980's -- not actually and -- end into the late 1980's and early 1990's, when groups rose up against an ideology the population just could not live with. to shift gears here, afghanistan is a good example of this. we are in a struggle with an oppressive ideology. the taliban's vision of afghanistan, in syria, they are different in some ways. in afghanistan, the groups trying to win this one from the opposition side are trying to establish an extreme version of islam. an emirate where the most important ministry is virtue and vice. it is an ideological struggle. i would just say the people who want to give up this early on, remember this one is a generational struggle. not one that is going to be measured in months or years. i would view afghanistan in a much broader sense. when you look at what is happening in north africa, look what is happening in the middle east, this is a struggle that is happening on multiple continents. the leadership, though, sits in this particular region. which is why i'm going to end my comments here by noting that this is what makes this particular theater so critically important. the leadership structure sits here. >> i second all of those comments. it is quite true that mullah omar never swore allegiance to osama bin laden. because it was the other way around. osama bin laden swore allegiance to mullah omar. as we talk about disaggregating al qaeda and the taliban, it is important to understand they have been aggregated for two decades. there have been arguments about whether to break with al qaeda. it was a big argument in the 1990's. mullah omar was on one side, guess who won? there was a fight over to hand over of some bin laden -- osama bin laden. these are groups that have been fighting together and for each other for a long time. i know there are people who think they can see into mullah omar's soul and believe if only they could talk to him we could work this puppy out. but there is no basis in reality for that view. as we talked about, i think seth's analogy is a very good one. the tide of war is receding. the tide of war is not receding. are any measure, the amount of war in the world today is higher than it was when barack obama took this. it is higher than it was when george bush took office, also. the tide of war is not receding. the tide of american desire to be involved in wars receding. now i have to go back to my roots as a sovietologist. we may be tired of war, but war is not tired of us. we can decide that we are going to stop fighting al qaeda, but al qaeda has not decided it is going to stop trying to attack us. every day, thousands of al qaeda fighters and leaders wake up and ask themselves what they can do that day to improve their ability to kill americans. as long as that is true, we do have a dog in this fight. we can argue about strategies and we can argue about whether we should do this or that or how many troops, but we do not receive my understanding that that is the world -- -- as it actually is, we are doomed from the standpoint of developing a decent strategy. lastly, i want to say that we have been talking about two different things that are treated as different but should not be. what is the humanitarian issue in afghanistan and promises to the afghan people. the question of what will happen to afghan women, and so forth. the other is our security interest. those are actually in my view not easily separable. because the united states is not, or should not be, and a moral actor in the world. -- an amoral actor in the world. we should not be a country that does not care if millions of people who we promised safety and security and a certain kind of life are suddenly victimized, killed, and treated horribly. we should care about that. the reflection of the possibility of that kind of care, i think, is in the formation of a new group that was rolled out yesterday that i had the pleasure to be a part of, the alliance in support of the afghan people. which has members from the spectrum, from me to gloria steinem. and both sides are represented in this because it is a recognition that the united states has obligations to these people for their security, and obligations of them also for the ethical nature and morality of our international engagement. we really cannot lose sight of either of those. >> thank you. i would close by saying that what you have here before you is a group of people whose interest in afghanistan and the consequences of this transcend politics. it is not about who is in power at any time. its interest is born of a long- term involvement in the region and what each of us have seen and learned from the afghans, pakistanis, being on the ground. the worst part about all of this is that -- the terrible sense of d?j? vu from charlie wilson's war. what i would leave you with today is that i asked the panelists not to sugarcoat it and not to give political answers. i think you have to respect their courage and integrity you have seen today. the answers you have been given to they are truly what these individuals believe. they have the experience and knowledge in the region for their voices to count. so, what is left to us is to hold our government to account. thank you very much. thanks for listening. thanks for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal" opinion and politics after the government shutdown. you -- follow that with a preview of the negotiations on the upcoming farm bill with alan bjerga. in the future of afghanistan and the united states as united states gets ready to withdraw from afghanistan. at 7 a.m. eastern on c- span. on sunday, c-span profiles to lawmakers -- west virginia senator joe manchin, talking about growing up in farmington, and his family's connection with the kennedy campaign. rodgers, mcmorris discussing her role within the house republican leadership. this is a preview of mansion, and then rogers. this through the eyes of what i saw in the eyes byrd and his reverence for this great institution. i would have thought when the chips were down, it was always second,first, state politics, third. that is not what i see. i see 100 good people in the senate. i don't have anybody i don't like, i like everybody and try to get along with everybody. -- someestion them motives and reasons, the purpose of the service. and iack to john kennedy think about that speech on television, when i was 13 years old. ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. the constitution says, we the people. youhave to take ownership, have to have routine maintenance, and now we have a country where people say, ask not what your country did to you, but what you can do to it. >> i don't believe the republican party needs to change what it stands for, the principles and values that we believe in as republicans. that have been long-standing. but i do believe the republicans have to do a better job of positions our policy with how people live in the 21st century. and also using 21st century communication tools that, the days of just issuing a press release or raising lots of money, or doing television ads, connecting that much. the 2008 election when president obama was able to create this 13 million12 or people, this was a wake-up call to me. >> you can watch it does -- both of those profiles here on c- span. >> represented adam smith spoke on drone strikes and also answered questions from the audience. he spoke for about one hour. >> thank you very much, it is great to be here. i really appreciate the relationship with csis. my desire to learn more about issues -- nobody has been more helpful in that then john. the level of expertise here at csis is very helpful. we are trying to puzzle through some difficult and challenging national security issues. i want to talk about how we continue to proceed with our fight against al qaeda and their ideology. during my time in congress, nothing has changed our policy more than 9/11. it was a major shift, we have been reacting to that event ever since. we created the department of homeland security, the national director of intelligence, invaded afghanistan and iraq. how do we fight this war effectively? it is unlike any other battle that we have ever fought. what i want to do this morning is set the frame for where we are at and where we should go. more than a dozen years after the event, how are we doing, what are the challenges, how do we move forward. the central challenge that we have is we are still trying to accomplish two things. it is still a war, people forget that. al qaeda declared war on us in 1996, they have not changed their mind. the only thing stopping them from attacking us is our ability to stop them. that has not changed. the organization, the groups have metastasized and changed, we have grown, in some way stronger than others. in national security in the u.s., the dod, cia, the primary thing you are thinking about is whether or not there's going to be a terrorist attack and what you could do that day to prevent it. that is the dominating aspect of our national security policy. for all of the challenges we have with russia, china, the asia-pacific, latin america, the number one thing on our minds is protecting this country. the number one threat to that is terrorism and al qaeda and their offshoots. we have to fight that war, one of the best ways is to get them before they get us. that involves military action. the second thing we have been trying to accomplish -- president bush and obama have tried to figure out how to do this -- to win the ideological struggle. to stop people in the muslim world from wanting to join organizations like al qaeda. to bring greater stability and move towards a more moderate form of government in these countries. the great challenge is that number one conflicts with number two. we see that in the drone campaign. undeniably, it has been effective. the ability of al qaeda central leadership to plot attacks has been degraded, one of the biggest things is we have effectively targeted and disrupted their leadership. when your top terrorists are spending all of their time every day worrying about how they can stay alive, they cannot plot as effectively. that has worked. the other thing that is true is that the military campaign has made it more difficult to win the ideological struggle. to convince the muslim world and others to get away from al qaeda. the one narrative that al qaeda has is that they are the one group of people standing up against western aggression. standing up against the west's attempts to influence and attack the muslim world. to the extent that they are in the middle of the war, that feeds into that narrative. that is not an argument for not doing it. it is an argument for figuring out how to balance that. in any war, if you choose to attack, you will anger your enemy. you are trying to prevent them from attacking you. president obama -- when he got into office, had a very specific vision for how to do that. we are going to reset relationships. the goal was -- the notion was the world was not fond of the bush administration. they viewed us as trying to force our will on the rest of the world. you have a whole bunch of issues, you're going to change all that and work with the rest of the world. deliver a different message so that we can build broader support. it is fair to say, five years into it, that that has not worked. at this point, i have not seen any polling data, if you were to poll people in europe, the muslim world, elsewhere -- the level of support to the u.s. is probably about back to where it was during the bush administration. that is not the be-all end-all, we are not trying to protect our national security and thinking the number one goal is for everyone to like us. it is an important element. one of the more troubling things is not just the lack of support that we see from some of our allies, but domestically, some of the central underpinnings of our campaign to contain al qaeda and win the ideological war are not a supported in this country as we would like. people have long wanted us out of afghanistan. there is concern about drone attacks, the nsa revelations have undermined confidence. there are a number of different reasons. i will point out the reasons why we have not had as much success as we had hoped in terms of building broad support for our campaign. and then second, what we should do about it. the reasons why are clear, number one is the drone strikes. it has gotten a fair amount of attention. a number of civilian casualties, the justification for those attacks, the world is focused on this. i do believe that drones are getting an unfair portion of blame. a drone is a weapon of war. i don't feel that the world would feel any better if we were launching cruise missiles. i think there is too much emphasis how this has changed things, a drone is more dangerous than sending in a seal team. if anything, drones are more surgical. they are not the perfect instrument that they are sometimes described to be. we should be clear, as secretary gates was yesterday, it is war. in war, civilians suffer. we should not pretend that we have come up with some way to prevent that. we want to minimize that, but there will be innocent to suffer. the drones are one of the biggest reasons. another big reason is the fact that guantanamo is still open. for all of the efforts we have made to change interrogation, emphasizing normal civilian constitutional trials, the fact that guantanamo is still open, that is all the rest of the world needs to know. all the other efforts get swept under the rug, we still have over 160 people in prison, guantanamo. the other challenge is the arab spring. thomas friedman said it best, no president has faced as chaotic a situation in the middle east as president obama. whether you are talking about egypt, bahrain, libya, syria. it is a chaotic situation. we have seen the difficulties in developing our relationships with allies like saudi arabia and israel. everyone wants something different. we have broad goals, but goals conflict. we want democratic governments that represent the people. we want stability, we want to stop the rise of extremism. but what do you do when you have a situation like egypt? mubarak brought stability, he did not bring democracy and freedom. no matter which way you choose, you are contradicting one of your stated goals. that is one of the major problems we have with saudi arabia. when the democratically elected government was removed, that is contrary to our goal. but the democratic government that was removed was not terribly democratic. how do you strike that balance? that has presented a challenge. i will also mention the fact that the federal government here in the u.s. has been unable to function, unable to pass budgets. i could go off at length on this topic. i will just say two things. the nihilism of the tea party, the basic notion that all they want to do is hurt the federal government -- and they are incredibly indiscriminate about how they do it -- is a real problem. one of the things the federal government does is it provides for our national security. if you are hurting our federal government, you are hurting our ability to do national security. i cannot imagine what it is like to work at the pentagon right now. i was talking with people yesterday -- it is great, the government is open. that is how low a bar we have set. [laughter] with the cr, sequestration, every four or five months the threat of a government shutdown, there is no way we can function effectively. whatever you may think of how large the federal government should be, it is unacceptable to set up a situation where it cannot function. make no mistake, that hurts us and our ability to work with the rest of the world. they do not see us as as credible a force. those are some of the challenges that have made it more difficult to as effectively advance our policy. a couple quick things and then i will take your questions. the things that we need to change -- there is a need for greater transparency of our drone strikes. we need to make clear why we are targeting people. there are a bunch of different groups, that is the thing about al qaeda. some groups are formally affiliated, some groups have adopted the ideology. we need to make clear that our number one goal is to stop those groups that are plotting and planning attacks against our homeland and against western interests. there are a lot of other groups that we do not like, boko haram in nigeria -- they are not plotting attacks against us. it is self-defense if we are going after groups that are plotting attacks against us. it changes -- it was pakistan for a long time. and then the underwear bomber -- some attacks were coming out of yemen and we had to respond. i make no apology for the fact that we targeted anwar al- awlaki. he was targeting us. unfortunately, far too often, we do not make it clear why we are doing this. i understand the need for secrecy. we do not have to reveal all of it. whenever we do a targeted strike, whether it is a drone or sending in special operations, we need to at least briefly explain why. i realize that some of these strikes are on the title 50 side, they are secret. we can reveal what we want to reveal. we do have to reveal enough to say this is why we hit this person. it was clearly self-defense. i also think it is good at the president is moving us towards getting more into the dod title 10 side. also -- guantanamo is a big part of this. there is no reason we cannot close that prison. it would be a step in the right direction. the third thing is something that we have done, we need to do it more broadly -- build partner capacity. instead of the u.s. showing up and firing the shots, let's work with local allies to stop an insurgency before it gets started. number two, make sure it is the local forces that are enforcing the law. we have done this effectively in the philippines. we have had a presence there for a while. they are battling insurgents of a variety of stripes down there. it has been by and large effective, there has been an uptick in the last couple of months. no u.s. person has fired a shot, but we have been integral to success. the same is true in the horn of africa. we have worked with ethiopia, kenya, burundi, so it is a local fight, not something being dictated by the u.s. that would help, building up partner capacity. yes, let us get to the point where we actually fund our government on a regular basis. i could get into that but i will leave it at that. the last thing i will say is -- we need to better manage expectations as to what the u.s. can do. a large part of our problem with allies like israel and saudi arabia is that they expect that whatever problems it is, we should show up and solve it. there has always been a far greater gap between expectations and abilities, that gap is growing. the rest of the world is becoming more powerful. the u.s. is not as dominant as it used to be. the expectation that the u.s. can show up and fix it is a huge problem. during one of the riots in cairo, the interviewed a young man -- a movie played and got the muslim world all upset. the young man said "this would not be on the internet if president obama did not want it there." we need to make it clear that we are not part of the problem. that is the problem with syria, the u.s. stepped up and said it is an international norm, but somehow it is the sole responsibility of the u.s. to enforce it. that reinforces the message that that reinforces the message that if something bad happens in the world, it is because the u.s. has decided to allow it. that we could decide otherwise. that is not true. when i was visiting a refugee camp in northern jordan, i was shocked at the number of refugees who said why don't you stop this. assad must be stopped, why isn't the u.s. doing it? we really are not capable of doing it. we cannot fix every problem in the world. the obama administration understands that. they have pushed to continue for a more cooperative approach. let us work with our allies to solve these problems instead of assuming that the u.s. has to show up and fix it. that is why in afghanistan --

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Vietnam , Republic Of , China , Burundi , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Kabul , Kabol , Afghanistan , Bahrain , Ethiopia , West Virginia , Miami River , Florida , Eckerd College , Yalta , Tul Skaya Oblast , Mumbai , Maharashtra , India , Nigeria , Florida Medical Center , Egypt , Massachusetts , Libya , Poland , New York , Philippines , Tampa Bay , Japan , Tampa , Germany , Missouri , Texas , Iran , Town Hall , Wisconsin , Georgia , Jordan , Pakistan , Waziristan , Pakistan General , Farmington , Bay Pines , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Iraq , Israel , Petersburg , Sankt Peterburg , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Houston , Pennsylvania , Yemen , Americans , America , Floridians , Pakistani , Afghan , Iraqi , American , Iraqis , Libyans , Afghans , Soviet , German , Pakistanis , Adam Smith , Jim Davis , Lara Logan , Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers , Jack Murtha , Esther Miller , George Bush , Shin Seki , Thomas Friedman , Joe Manchin , Sam Gibbons , Gloria Steinem , Seth Jones , Gerald Ford , Barack Obama , Al Qaeda , Bess Truman , Jackson Lee , Mcchrystal Pasha , Ross Leyden , Charlie Wilson , John Kennedy , Anwar Al Awlaki ,