troops in afghanistan. in this 40 minute interview, we'll talk with them about his experience in the u.s. army and air force. this was his second trip to afghanistan. >> my first trip was for -- -- was to the province in the south. on this trip i wanted to go back to the south and see if i could detect progress or see if things had gotten worse, but also could use some areas in afghanistan i had not visited before. in 2007 i spent my time in kabul. this time i headed out to one of the agricultural district south kabul to see a different facet of the war effort. >> heidi make the arrangements to get there? >> you can buy commercially into kabul -- you can fly commercially into kabul. >> october was the deadliest month for u.s. servicemen and. how concerned are you for your own personal safety and what measures do you take to protect yourself? >> if you are in bed, if you are required to wear much of the same protective gear that the u.s. troops duke, a helmet and a best with armor plates and it. and you writ

afghanistan. we will executes it responsibly. what we are seeing here is we will assess where we are and how we began that transition depends on where the afghans are. i think nato is very important indeed they can help transition. host: he says it is not just president obama's war. guest: it is not. when we went into bosnia back in 1995, we had 37 nations with us. two-thirds of the force were other than the u.s. there are 43 nations on the ground now. most americans don't understand that. they are in the north and some of them are involved in muscular operations in the south, but how to consult with those of 43 nations to get this trust that we need, and we have not a good -- had done a good job consulting. it is important to get nato involved in this. what hillary clinton is doing will make that happen. host: this is from the "new york times." he says, most decision makers on both sides privately believe we are in the business of managing failure, and that is hwo the surge looks. guest: i don't

become the government of afghanistan. the insurgent groups have more limited geographical region objectives, but they are no less lethal. all three groups are supported to some degree by external elements in iran and pakistan, have ties with al qaeda, and coexist within narcotics and criminal networks both fuelling and feeding off instability and insecurity in the region. the mission in afghanistan is undeniably difficult and will incur significant costs. i participated fully in the president's assessment and decision making process and was afforded multiple opportunities to provide my recommendations and best military advice, which i did. combined with insights and policy considerations from across our government. i believe the decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach. to pursue our core goal of defeating al qaeda and preventing their return to afghanistan, we must disrupt and degrade the taliban's capacity, deny their access to the afghan population, and strengthen the afghan secu

we ended up neglecting afghanistan. if we want to take afghanistan away from being a source of training for our al qaeda and other terrorists, if we want to get some stability, if we want to stop the momentum of the taliban, it's just not we the united states, it's we meaning 43 nations that need to work together. and i hope secretary of state clinton today in nato will be able to get that consensus that's required to be able to get nato. i am predicting several thousands of troops by nato. >> host: interviewing the secretary of state saying she is pleased so far with the effort by nato and the ap reporting that the count of troops will be 7,000 additional with more to come. >> this is what consultation does. we never consulted to the degree that we needed to with nato. i spent my whole life back and forth on the iron curtain and the berlin wall, et cetera, for nearly most of my 36 years. we never really consulted with them. when you do, you get some degree of consensus that's required. and when you do that, you make th

what are we in afghanistan? -- why are we in afghanistan? frankly, sometimes i am surprised how quickly people will go back to the mindset of september tamp10. you are in afghanistan because you were attacked, because of 911. this is truly america's war, to distract and destroy al qaeda. this is nato's battle for regional stability and europe's security. it is our struggle to stay alive in a difficult part of the world. your presence in africa speafghn has prevented attacks. but you're in mounds of afghanistan to provide security -- but you are in afghanistan to provide security. the benefit is neutral. it is to the best mutual nnational interest to fight a bharal enemy in afghanistan. -- to fight a brittle enemy in afghanistan. one cannot separate this from stability or lack of stability in pakistan, in mission test nuclear capabilities. it has become an epicenter lately. other neighbors of afghanistan have nuclear ambitions. your presence is beneficial for both of us. i know that being in afghanistan is dangerous. so many precious lives of

troops in afghanistan. that is a pretty significant commitment. >> for the record, madam secretary, you made the statement about karzai in the speech he made. i hope it is not just empty words. for the record, if you would give us your indication, your feelings about what he can do now to accomplish what you had suggested. >> i certainly will, but if i could just quickly add, one of the most important parts of his speech was his assertion that afghan forces would be taking responsibility for many important parts of the country within three years, and that they would be responsible for the entire country within five years. that is very much along the lines of the kind of partnering in transition that we think is realistic. we just have to keep the feet to the fire and keep pushing it forward. >> there has been much made about this withdrawal goal as arbitrary. based on the advice of general mcchrystal and your it buys about expectation of what the situation on the ground would be in 2011, given these additio

some of you fought in afghanistan. some of you will deploy their. as your commander in chief, iou emission that is clearly defined -- i owe you a mission that is clearly defined and with your service. that is why after the afghan review was completed, i insist on a tour review of our strategy. let me be clear, there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010. there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review time. instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in afghanistan, and are key partners. given the stakes involved, i owed the american people and our troops no less. this review is now complete. and as commander-in-chief, i have determined that it is in our vital natural -- and the vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 u.s. troops to afghanistan. after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. these are

in afghanistan, we have got to win. we cannot have another vietnam in afghanistan. the surge worked in iraq and it can work again in afghanistan. we are going to win. host: harvey, missouri. caller: hello? congress has never made out to their promises made to the veterans in the 1960's, how can we expect them to live up to their promises now? host: ok, last phone call this morning and what he wants for a health care bill. after this we will head over to the national archives. a nonprofit program has brought children together -- educating young people to become involved citizens. our first guest is chuck grassley. guest: i have already used twitter this morning, if you wanted to put questions in to me i do a web cast once per week. host: if you are just joining us, we are just now beginning the conversation. welcome to the national archives. just a moment ago charles grassley was speaking to the students here. as a way of introduction, charles grassley, ranking republican and member of the agriculture committee, thank you for your time. brandon has the very first que

efforts in afghanistan. this committee under the leadership of chairman kerry and senator lugar has taken the lead in passing legislation to dramatically increase help to pakistan authorizing a $7.5 billion over five years of assistance. these funds make it footbapossi support pakistan and education, water, agriculture and governance. we're developing a civilian assistance strategy to reduce poverty and vulnerability to terrorist recruitment that poverty breetsds. a and significant projects. we hear repeatedly from pakistanis who want to be involved and under the leadership of paterson, we're working closely to develop a program that reflects their needs and work through pakistani institutions develop programs wherever possible with a goal of abling nongovernmental organizations. jus as we need strong local partners for assistance programs to succeed, we need international partners to support pakistan the development and democracy helping pakistan build on its success. we're working closely with pakistan and

ambassador to afghanistan. we do have a very close collaborative relationship with our united states embassy in pakist pakistan. the issues of security we're talking about here today are inextricably linked, afghanistan and pakistan. but it wouldn't be for me to -- >> i appreciate that. and i think that secretary gates and secretary lou were pretty good on this. but some unsolicited advice here. the american people are not going to support the deployment of 30,000 people on a bank shot. on an indirect strategy to try to deal with a very direct problem. and i understand that the prevention of a re-emergence of a sanctuary in afghanistan has real value. but it's pretty clear to me that one of the central focal points of this mission is to help the pakistani government survive, and to help it gain its footing and credibility. i do think we need to articulate that. i think it's a very legitimate rationale. i think it is in our national interest to do so. but i think if we omit that from our discussion, we're omitti

why are we doing this in afghanistan? my understanding of testimony is that were we to adopt the strategy, the taliban would reassert itself in afghanistan, having safe havens there from which to launch attacks. no. 2, we can not going to pakistan. we have to try to build up the pakistan these capability of dealing with the problem there. this is not an either or choice. ignoring one would undermine the other. if you care to address this notion that we could do one but not the other, which seems to be out there in the minds of some. >> they are inextricably linked. there is no question that if the taliban, and their strategic goal is to take over the government again, if they came back then they would certainly have all the ability to provide that kind of safe haven. again, there solely to cross that border, the link is between these two countries. nothing is more evident than that. that is why the president's strategy, even in march, drove this to a regional approach, not a single country approach. you cannot just do one

like afghanistan? and are 974 civilians as the administration proposed having on the ground by early next year, all we need? if not, when will you be able to tell us exactly how many are required? what will your new military campaign plan include that the august plan did not? with regard to the military strategy, i am curious. one of the keys to our success in iraq was the sunni awakening in which thousands of sunni tribesmen, many of whom had participated in or aided the insurgency, essentially switched to our side. is there any prospect of a similar shift in afghanistan? can we succeed in afghanistan without such an awakening? finally, general mcchrystal, will 30,000 troops, even with an additional 7,000 apparently pledged by other nations, be sufficient to break the taliban's momentum? can we meet the president's objective of degrading the taliban by focusing primarily on the south, when the taliban is already operating in the north? what types of soldiers, trainers, civil affairs, infantry, will co

do in afghanistan as well. i think that it's a decision that we have made. opposition might be more -- and i'm grateful for the fact that he has served and for all people who have served in the territorial army, but it is important said -- it is important to recognize that our resources have got to be prioritized toward what we're doing in afghanistan. territory does the british army control, and how much more can we win with the without the help of the afghan allies? >> he is putting this in the context of territory. i would prefer to put it in the context of people, people working with us in the main centers. our strategy is to work with the people in the villages in the town, particularly in the towns, to make sure that they feel responsibility, with a police force more intense with the needs of the people, and that is the strategy that we want to pursue. >> the prime minister stated that are 90,000 trained afghan troops, but the leader of the opposition pointed out that just actually in helmand province. 50

afghanistan. that's all i can give you beyond what you already know. what i can tell you is, they received a couple of visits today. i can't go into details of the visit. it was a routine consular visit. but because of privacy concerns, i can't say much more than that. i'm not sure exactly whereñr it is, but it was a routine visit. >> there wasn't any kind of f.b.i. or -- this wasn't an interrogation igs by u.s. officials, it was for consular services? >> that's right. >> what's your understanding of what the pakistanis are going to doçó with him? >> i don't know. we have to see. i don't want to go into this any further than what we said over the last few days. i wanted to give you an update and say there was a consular visit. >> on mexico, do you have anything on this very big drug bust or cartel -- anti-cartel operation in mexico? i think one of the biggest drug cartelçó leaders was killed by the mexican military. >> we congratulate the mexican navy and mexican government on a well-executed

that at the end of the day it's the people of afghanistan, the country of afghanistan and it's asked that we should defend our country with the continued support of the afghanistan community. i agree, that the quality of training and equipment and as well as time are all necessary to make sure that our security forces and the next 3-5 years will be be preparing us to take over security from our partners. also the problem of opium is a major problem. it's global problem, in fact. trance national problem. there's figures that say the opium produceed afghanistan is worth some 30 billion dollars on the black market. so that means that we not only have to fight the problem of the supply in afghanistan, but also mostly in consuming countries. particular in western europe. so we need to therefore, provide resources for law enforcement and go after high value targets such as the drive)s of the narc business and traffickers and provide alternative assiáup'ce to sharecroppers. sharecroppers who cultivate opium for abilities to support % their families. host: next up for the line of republican

in afghanistan. they performed with courage and restraint. one lost his leg in the process. whatever a program now attaches to others i owe those gallant men, state department and contract employees my gratitude. i wanted to have this moment to express it. to sum up the problems that i wanted to talk about are the inadequate security communications that you referred to in the previous panel, security mobility issues, especially the need for expanded air assets that may be required, utilizing local security forces for prts and branch posts and accepting some greater degree of risk when the gains warrant. finally, the consideration of funds for security emergencies. the report observed the changing security conditions that govern our life. that has produced a vast expansion of security facilities and resources. but there are still gaps between some of our standards and practices and the needs that we have to serve. we lack the standards, not the equipment, to provide secure deployable computer-based co

in afghanistan, if we deal with the economic progress in afghanistan, it all depends upon having a partner that can work with us. we got to transition the security. we got to have governance of a country that respects the rights of its people, and we have to deal with economic development that if there is monies being taken through corruption, it is going to cost american taxpayer and international community and the afghan itself more than it should. so secretary lew, i just really want to challenge a statement you made. you said, we're going to hold them -- first you said we're going to have a policy against corruption and we're going to hold the afghan government accountable. how do you hold them accountable? what do you do if you find corruption? do you pull our soldiers out? do you cut off the money? how do you hold them accountable? >> i think secretary clinton testified last week it going to be a long-term challenge to end corruption in afghanistan. and we have to realistic expectations. and i think when we talk about holding them accountable, it means that we have to see where our m

so, here we are, in afghanistan. and i know many of you, because you reference in your testimony, have gone through siger's book of hard lessons. i know you understand the challenges we face in contracting, but one thing is clear -- we will have more contractors in afghanistan and we will have men and women in uniform. there is no doubt about that. we will spend a significant chunk of the tens of billions of dollars in afghanistan and will be spent for contractors. the purpose of this hearing, and it will be the first of several hearings we will have, is to get an overview as to how the ground has changed as a relates to contract in during a contingency. how is the coordination occurring? how integrated is the effort? most importantly, is the mission now saturated with the knowledge that if we are going to have contractors, do supply lines, make breakfast, do the laundry, build not only the buildings for men and women in uniform but buildings and roads for the people of afghanistan, do that taxpayers have a better sh

troops to afghanistan troops. i a understand we are working as hard as we possibly can to redress that balance. just so we can understand what it is we're looking forward to and what to prepare for, is there a risk, until we close that gap -- trainers in combat troops, that our troops will be viewed more as occupiers and therefore we may incur or incite further insurgents and violence, and therefore perhaps even put our guys and gals in more on his way than otherwise? >> there are several components to that. the first is that we did that how we argued will be based on how we operate more than the numbers we have. it is in very ample -- it is very important that our forces work with the level of cultural respect and a clear desire to protect the population. and they are doing a good job of that all the weekend obviously continue to do better. as we work with the afghans, they want to be secured by afghans but they are tolerant and understand the need for coalition forces to do it until afghan security forces are av

parts of afghanistan still remain very difficult. the only way to address those problems is additional forces, whether u.s. or non-u.s. nato forces. where i have an absolute consensus -- we need to it celebrate the building of the afghan army and police. the additional -- the best way to do that is additional u.s. forces. we all have questions about additional forces, and it is important to understand the number, the timeline, the purpose, and the context. and the third point i make, with the president's defining of the mission and the clarity and what ways we are going to use and what resources would be allocated against that at that point in time, i was one hand% and am 100% supportive of the decision that was made. with regard to the effect on my relations with the afghan government, i maintain, senator, good relations with president karzai, and our embassy rate -- maintains excellent relations with the government of afghanistan and we will continue to improve on what is already a good working relationship. >> i appreciate your an

they're in pakistan not in afghanistan. we're told that maybe there's 100 members of al qaeda in afghanistan. do we need that many troops to go after 100 members of al qaeda? you mentioned earlier on your show that secretary gates meeting with president karzai and president karzai saying he expects us to be there for at least five years. then he says he expects us to bank roll his security forces for the next 15 to 20 years. this is a huge commitment that i don't believe is in our national security interest. >> lehrer: what general mcchrystal said today to the house committee that he thought that within a year he would know whether or not at least we would know whether or not the taliban has been ... the taliban's progress has been thwarted. you don't buy that? >> i don't think anybody believes in a year or a year-and-a-half we're going to significantly drawback our troops. the administration has spent the last year kind of bending over backwards telling people that there really isn't a timetable. it is hard for me to see h

in afghanistan, we have got to win. we cannot have another vietnam in afghanistan. the surge worked in iraq and it can work again in afghanistan. we are going to win. host: harvey, missouri. caller: hello? congress has never made out to their promises made to the veterans in the 1960's, how host: ok last phone call this morning on what you want from a health care bill. >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president obama will deliver a national address from the u.s. military academy at west point. the president will lay out his plan for u.s. troop levels and american involvement in afghanistan. he's expected to announce an order to deploy 30,000 more troops and detail the afghan government's changing role in the war. we'll air the president's speech on one of the three c-span networks, along with c-span.org and c-span radio. a live picture on c-span2 of the -- of senator orrin hatch debating and the rest of the senate tonight continuing a second day of floor debate on h.r. 4590, on the $848 billion plan to expand health insurance coverage. among amendments debated today, one by

operating in afghanistan? or -- and if we already acknowledge that afghanistan is not in danger, imminent danger of falling what constitutes success in july when we're going to decide whether we should pull troops out or not? sent gates? >> i think we have -- no one thinks that the government in kabul is in imminent risk of being overthrown, but it was certainly the conclusion of general mcchrystal's assessment that the situation was serious and deteriorating. and we have seen the taliban get more aggressive and more bold with each passing week. what we want to do is, in helping the afghans, make sure that that government doesn't fall and that we are able to sustain a friendly government in kabul that will help us deny al qaeda a safe haven. >> the time of the gentleman expired. the gentleman from new york, mr. engle. >> thank you, and i want to thank all the witnesses for testifies. i listened very carefully to the president's speech and i'm willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt, but my fear,

army in afghanistan. to watch the program again or find other programs produced with his videos and interviews, go to our website, c-span.org. in the search box , typeax axe. >> on "newsmakers" representative joe barton discusses the u.s. and climate change conference in copenhagen and other topics. at 6:00 on c-span. >> a political commentator who teaches at george mason university published " the republicans and the black vote" which looks of the historical relationship between republicans and the gop. he is our guest tonight on c- span's "q &a." n >> "prime minister's questions" is on tonight at 9:00 eastern. >> now available, c-span's " abraham lincoln." a birthday gift for the historian in your life. it's a unique, contemporary perspective on lincoln from 56 scholars and writers from his early years to his life in the white house and its relevance today. "abraham lincoln" is available in hardcover and on digital audio to listen to any time. learn more at c-span.org. >> the number of those needing hel

do in afghanistan as well. i think that it's a decision that we have made. opposition might be more -- and i'm grateful for the fact that he has served and for all people who have served in the territorial army, but it is important said -- it is important to recognize that our resources have got to be prioritized toward what we're doing in afghanistan. territory does the british army control, and how much more can we win with the without the help of the afghan allies? >> he is putting this in the context of territory. i would prefer to put it in the context of people, people working with us in the main centers. our strategy is to work with the people in the villages in the town, particularly in the towns, to make sure that they feel responsibility, with a police force more intense with the needs of the people, and that is the strategy that we want to pursue. >> the prime minister stated that are 90,000 trained afghan troops, but the leader of the opposition pointed out that just actually in helmand province. 50

look at afghanistan. because we have so few african -- afghan national army, we use the police to back them up. they are not trained for it or equipped for. it. that shows you how important it is that we define what the role of the african national army and the afghan national police. salary is an issue. it takes time to develop the leadership there. in iraq and other countries where i have been, you have the existing structure of police that you could use and generate while in afghanistan. we are building a plane while we are flying. it takes time to build that leadership an institution to support that leadership in order for the anp to sustain itself over time. we should realize what kind of difficult position we are putting the anp in because they have to fight every day to the last. >> do you consider the city to be secure? >> absolutely not. ghana city is interesting because the perception there will define the perception of security and the future. that is a battleground. -- that is of vital brent.

ambassador to afghanistan, karl eikenberry. also live this afternoon, a senate homeland security subcommittee looking into how the government insures diplomatic security. the state's apartment -- the state department spends nearly $3 billion per year that is live at 2:30 p.m., eastern. today on c-span, "washington journalÑi"is next live with your phone calls. that is followed by our coverage of the u.s. house. today, members are scheduled to work on changes to tax rolls at financial industry regulations. in about half an hour, analysis of proposed health care legislation with congressional quarterly. then the international union discusses president obamas jobs policy at 8:00, eastern. we will talk

this is true in afghanistan. this is true in failed states like somalia, where tourism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering people -- terrorism and paris is joined by famine and human suffering. -- terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. this will be true for years to come. leaders and allies demonstrate this truth through the courage they showed in afghanistan. but in many countries, this is a disconnect between the efforts of those who served andç the ambivalence of the broader public. i understand what war is not popular, but i also know this -- the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. peace requires responsibility to. peace entails sacrifice. amt was the international reception to the president's words in reference to our allies and making a unified effort in afghanistan? guest: it was not hostile, but i don't think it made an overwhelming impression. if i could just talk a minute about the issue of allies in afghanistan, there is a fundamental d

ambassador to afghanistan, karl eikenberry will testify at two hearings tomorrow on afghanistan strategy. in the morning it will be the house armed services committee. that is live on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern and also live on c-span3 their testimony before the senate armed services committee at 1:30 p.m. eastern. both hearings are also on line at c-span.org. later in the week it will take questions from members of the house and senate foreign relations committees. >> now another in a series of hearings on the president's new afghanistan strategy part of the witnesses are defense secretary robert gates, joint chiefs of staff chairman mike mullen and secretary of state hillary clinton. john kerry of massachusetts years this hearing. is about three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. secretary clinton, secretary gates, and admiral mullen, we welcome you here today. thank you very much for joining us and we appreciate your coming to share more details about the president's plan and for consulting and partnering with congress on the decision obviously of enormous consequences for ou

the problem with the opium in afghanistan is that basically there is no economy in afghanistan except for opium. they don't produce anything. it is largely an agricultural economy and the only crop that really pulls in any money is opium. now, the opium not only supports the taliban, it supports many people in the government, too including the one of the president's brothers, hamid karzai's brother walid. dick holbrooke the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, has suggestedç a crop substitution program but the problem is that it requires not only just seeds to grow a different crop like wheat or cotton, but it requires an entire infrastructure. it requires roads, it requires trucks to get these products to market. it requires markets. so much infrastructure is missing in afghanistan that to build an economy based on a different crop would be a massive, massiveç nation buildg effort. and it is easier said than done. host: the military is calling in afghanistan snatch and grab as u.s. troops tried to take in some of these so-called terrorists and cnn this morning rep

i just returned from afghanistan, served two times in iraq and i was wondd in afghanistan and i'll be going back. i think mr. ruben's assessment is exactly right. the geographicically, iraq is very much different than afghanistan. what we're trying to do there is provide security while providing the services for people. there that any human being are entitled to. unfortunately, some of the media has portrayed it like we tried to buy off the afghan people. and what they're just looking for is any other, like any other human being, is to live, live with security, with water, with roads, with -- but we can't do it with the forces we have there. we can't provide both services. we have to -- when we leave out of the area and the lady mentioned some of the provinces i was in, the taliban would come in afterwards and try to intim date the people there. and as far as this, i feel it's a red herring. >> thank for your call. guest: i would first say jack's a good example of the kind of stress that the military is under. three tours now he has served and more to come. and one thing that trudey p

strategy in afghanistan. that speech will air on one of the three c-span television networks and at cspan.org and you can listen on c-span radio. and we'll take your phone calls after the president's remarks. all live tonight starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> on this vote the yeas are 60, the nays are 39. 3/5 of the senators duly chosen sworn having voted in the affirmative the motion is agreed to. >> with that vote, the senate moves its health care bill to the floor. starting today, and through december, follow the entire debate and how the bill would affect access to medical care, the public option, taxes, abortion and medicare, love here on c-span2. the only network that brings you the senate, gavel to gavel. >> next a preview of tonight's announcement by president obama regarding troop levels in afghanistan. from this morning's "washington journal." it's an hour. >> host: senior fellow for the center for new american security. also, write as blog for foreign policy called, the best defense at, ricks.forei

the military presence in afghanistan is large and growing. we must note that the challenge is also a large and becoming more acute. afghanistan is nearly the size of texas, but is mostly mountainous and subject to approval extremes of weather. the afghan population is estimated at 29 million they are mostly poor and mostly illiterate. this poses great challenges. they provide security, or reconstruction, logistical and humanitarian assistance. it is safe to say that none of the countries assisting afghanistan in its struggle, was to have a long-term military presence. certainly the united states does not. that is while -- one building well-trained and law-abiding national security forces in afghanistan is a vital mission. that mission is daunting. afghanistan's military was severely degraded during the soviet occupation and the civil war that led to the taliban reg. it was said in the august report that it was riddled with corruption and short of equipment and no one can argue with that. in september, the washington post published a confident

i do not think afghanistan today is afghanistan of the soviet union. i do not think it is iraq 2007. let's deal with the situation we have. not with analogies to other places. i understand the question. >> [inaudible] the situation in afghanistan has the potential of along, drawn- out -- [inaudible] >> in terms of domestic american politics there is a great parallel. when the president finds himself in a terrible situation. the critics of the war are nancy pelosi democrats from san francisco, cambridge and new york city. the supporters are sarah palin republicans from alaska and arizona. that is a terrible place for a democratic president to be. the people he has to convince to support him are his natural constituency. he does not have to convince sarah palin. she is looking for the opportunity to say, you are screwing up. the politics are terrible for the president. yes? >> you mentioned that we do not know where osama bin laden is. there are reports that are very few. there have been reports that he has, if not stay in iran, going back and forth to i

troops in afghanistan. that is a pretty significant commitment. >> for the record, madam secretary, you made the statement about karzai in the speech he made. i hope it is not just empty words. for the record, if you would give us your indication, your feelings about what he can do now to accomplish what you had suggested. >> i certainly will, but if i could just quickly add, one of the most important parts of his speech was his assertion that afghan forces would be taking responsibility for many important parts of the country within three years, and that they would be responsible for the entire country within five years. that is very much along the lines of the kind of partnering in transition that we think is realistic. we just have to keep the feet to the fire and keep pushing it forward. >> there has been much made about this withdrawal goal as arbitrary. based on the advice of general mcchrystal and your it buys about expectation of what the situation on the ground would be in 2011, given these additio

and afghanistan help? >> and the decrease in spending helps. but the long run deficits are not being driven by military spending. we assume that the war will eventually be over and that the military spending will come back down. but even if it continued, the real drivers of spending in the future are medicare and medicaid, and to a lesser extent, social security. >> and question in the back. -- a question in the back? >> thank you, i am nikole for the center for economic policy research. you just mentioned medicare and medicaid. i would like to ask a related question. what type of contributor to the debt is our private health care cost and if we were able to reduce the private health-care costs like other developed nations, how would that effect in the future? >> i think the short answer is the growth in medicare and medicaid share some common elements with the growth and private health-care costs and to the extent we get reforms that slow growth in health-care costs in general there would be bent -- but t

military in afghanistan. and later, the director of the secret service testifies about the security breach at the white house state dinner last week. >> american icons, three original documentaries on c-span now available on dvd. a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court are the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours into those rarely seen spaces of the white house, america's most famous home. and export history, art, and architecture of the capital, one of america's most symbolic structures. american icon, a three disc dvd set. it's $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/store. >> new hampshire senator judd gregg or letter this week to republicans recommending a slow debate on health care legislation. senators discuss the communication on the senate floor for about ten minutes. you can read the letter at c-span.org/health care. >> madam president, this is the fourth day

there in afghanistan. we will get to our service members, marines, soldiers and sailors in just a bit. here is a commentary in the philadelphia inquirer. we're joined by a marine joined bylyle stiffarm. we appreciate you joining us this morning. tell us a bit about yourself, your machine, and how long you have been in afghanistan. guest: good morning to you, mary christmas. i am from foreground, montana. i am a native american. i have been in afghanistan for four and a half months. i have 45 days and counting. host: there'll be a little bit of satellite delay, as we had with general patton this morning. our first guest this morning is sergeant lyle stiffarm. you have been in the marine corps for a number of years. and you have experience as well in iraq? guest: yes, i was in iraq for two years. this is my first time in afghanistan. i have been in the marine corps about 10 years now. host: tell us about what a typical day is like for you in your duties there and afghanistan and what did -- to this day is li

we have run al qaeda out of afghanistan. unfortunately the taliban remain, and their relationship that secretary clinton described between the al qaeda and the taliban complicates the issue tremendously, and the difficulty that we hear of course is that al qaeda has now migrated into western pakistan and there is a slow drip if you would have those people migrating into yemen and somalians which is going to cause us a problem in the future i would think. been in any event i think it is a positive that we should look at in the fact that we have driven al qaeda out of afghanistan but we have to remain, we have to deal with what is left over. this is a question that i have. hopefully a brief question. as we build up now and afghanistan, as the president has said we are going to do and you look at what has happened in iraq, whether you agree or disagree with whether we went there or whether we should have gone there in the first place or whether the surge was good or bad, things seem to be generally better in iraq today than wha

of afghanistan is very minimal. and at one time i compared afghanistan's g.d.p. to the value of the -- $7.5 billion -- i compared afghanistan's g.d.p. to the value of the beer brewed in wisconsin. and this tiny little economy has struggled along. it's very much agriculture base and a large percentage of the agricultural value output in afghanistan is poppy. poppy is from which heroin and opium is made. and that produces about half of the value of the ag products in afghanistan and perhaps more if one were able to get an accurate contracting. the poppy business in afghanistan, much of it in neighboring kandahar province to a lesser degree. those poppies in afghanistan represents about 2/3 of the world's supply of opium/heroin in the world. afghanistan has been a long producer of poppy. we knew it then. we knew when we went in to liberate afghanistan in the late fall or early winter of 2001 that the heroin trade from popies was a significant component of the funding of our enemies, the funding of the taliban. and it remains that way today. it may in some respects b

. -- on afghanistan. . continuing to press for further climate finance to be made available to help developing countries like bangladesh. >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> question number one, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to acting sergeant john amer from first battalion. we owe him a huge debt of gratitude as we plan a way forward in afghanistan, this loss in afghanistan reminds us of the risks and dangers our forces to have endure in afghanistan today and every day. and of the importance of securing peace and stability. mr. speaker, after talks with president obama i can also report that the london conference in afghanistan will make decisions on civil coordination in afghanistan. hear commitments by coalition partners on extra troops and from president karzai on afghan reform. this morning i had meetings with colleagues and others in addition to my duties in this house i shall have further such meetings today. >> in associating m

because i've experienced afghanistan. but i know that there was a moment in time where i needed somebody to read the book. i reached out to peter. peter, i'm grateful that you were the first person to read it. kind enough to give me the quote for the back cover. much, much more importantly, over many years. and with the book in particular, it was a push forward that i really needed at the time you gave it. now a book -- some books have forward, some books don't. if the author is not well known, it always helps to have a forward by somebody who's better known. forward serves that purpose of course. it's also important because the forwards sets the tone for what the book might be about. a forward tells the reader why it's important to take the time to read the book. which is something even though there's a lot of pictures, i hope people will take the time to read the text. and forward endorses the content. but for a reader, a forward also explains the author in a way that the author can't explain himself or herself. so i as

in addition in afghanistan u.s. agency for international development not participate as a voting member on the review board at the command level. their participation prevents duplication of effort and helps identify any problems with sustainment of the projects nominated by the program. at the time energy and ingenuity that people have devoted to improving service reflects a desire to spend taxpayer money wisely and to maintain a program that has proven to be a valuable tool in fighting in afghanistan and iraq. dod recognizes more improvements can be made in the management to maintain both the flexibility and accountability of this essential feel driven program. to that and the deputy secretary will lead a review of cerp to determine how best to enhance the department's guidance, management and oversight. in this report will be completed and made available to congress this spring. that may again thank you for the tremendous support of the congress to this program and i will be glad to address any questions on cerp.

soldier deployed in afghanistan we could build 20 schools in afghanistan. let me repeat that. the cost of one american soldier in afghanistan for a year we could build 20 schools in afghanistan. not only that, it seems the administration have failed to look into the best way forward. madam speaker, without the support of the local leaders who have the respect of the afghan people, nothing we do will work or be sustainable. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the article into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i also continue to be deeply troubled about the karzai government. today, president karzai's scheduled to convene a three-day conference on corruption. at a minimum, this conference is supposed to provide a forum where the afghanistan government admits publicly that it runs on bribery, cronyism, which in turn fuels the taliban insurgency. president karzai called this conference not because he campaigned on cleaning up his own government but because of international pressure. he ran a fraudulent election that unde

let me say a few words about afghanistan. you can also summarize what we've done in afghanistan in one sentence and where we are today. we are losing the war in afghanistan, but it is not yet lost. i hope. general mcchrystal's report courtesy of bob woodward all of you have had a chance to read, is an excellent summary of the situation in afghanistan. i think he hit the nail on the head. he got it exactly right. if there is one part of that report, which i urge you to look at, which talks about detention facilities in afghanistan in which he says, we no longer control the detention facilities in which we are keeping captured insurgents. they are under the control of al qaeda and the taliban, more radicalization and more recruitment for al qaeda takes place in those detention facilities than anywhere else in afghanistan today. when you have lost control of the prison camps in which you are putting insurgents in a counterinsurgency, you are in a deep, deep hole. ever measure we have demonstrates the momentum is entirely with th

, we had 300 in afghanistan. we will have 1,000 and we're continuing to grow. it's an all-government effort. department of treasury is on the ground. department of agriculture. drug enforcement administration. federal aviation administration. department of state. usaid. this is truly an impressivest. >> okay. general? >> the one point i would make, when you talk about military it may not look like what you traditionally think. we have military partnered with his. we're doing agricultural development, enabling civilian expertise. i think it's key we understand we're trying trying to do this with every part of our capacity that we have. >> thank you very much. >> the time of the general has expired. >> thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today. mr. ambassador, appreciate your emphasis on agricultural development. i think that's noteworthy. before my question, i want you all to succeed. the down side, gravity of the down side to not succeeding is very apparent. with that said, mr. ambassador, and this was touched up

contractors in afghanistan. considerably speaking, then, the total war fighter and contractor work force in that country will likely exceed 300,000 by the end of 2010. the u.n. sanction military presence in afghanistan is large and growing. but we must note the challenge there is also large and becoming more acute. afghanistan is nearly the size of texas, but unlike texas it's mostly mountainous and subject to brutal extremes of weather. the afghan population is estimated at 29 million. they are mostly rural, mostly poor, mostly ill literate. these conditions and a mounting insurgency pose great challenges to military operations as well as to the governmental, nongovernmental and contractor organizations that provide security, reconstruction, logistical and humanitarian assistance. it is safe to say none of the countries assisting afghanistan in its struggle against hard line insurgents and terrorists wants to have a long-term military presence there. certainly the united states does not. that is why building we

our own cia says there's less than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. what are we going in afghanistan? president obama said we were attacked in afghanistan. i don't think so. 15 of the 19 hijackers, terrorists, killers of 9/11, they were from saudi arabia. in fact, there wasn't one afghanistan citizen amongst them. the only thing afghanistan had to do with it, they are monkey bars in the desert that these guys trained on. i've seen the video. for that? it's absolutely insane, larry. we have been in this war for twice as long now as the u.s. was in world war ii. twice as long as world war ii. we defeated hitler and tojo and mussolini in half the time it's taken us to find osama bin laden. if he came on tonight and said we're going in with special forces to try and capture the killer, that's a good idea. that's not what he's talking about. he says we'll have 100,000 troops there to find these killers that aren't even there. absolutely insane. >> larry: he didn't make any kind of case to your satisfaction of the dangers, the differences between vietnam and iraq and afghanistan? he was opp

afghanistan? we have examined and looked closely at the policy review, and i would note that in all the policy review i have been part of way back to the vietnam policy when i work for some of the people i can see in the room and with others, this has been the most narrow, the most detailed, the most methodical review i have ever participated in korean president obama himself shared numerous meetings, and we had meetings with the principles and death duties common and we're going to have another one -- with the principles and duties, and we're going to have another one. the consensus of this discussion over and over again was that you could not separate taliban from outside--- al qaeda. if it weren't just another group with certain for the view we do not agree with, it would be a serious problem, but it would not justify our commitment of what will ultimately be 100,000 american troops and a good number of allied troops numbering in the 34,002 35,000 at least. the separation of the taliban from al

the payload is a little smaller. >> drone units in afghanistan did not handle the attacks. drone operations are bifurcated. most drone operators, the guys that steer them, sit in these trailers. most of them are in las vegas. they work at aircraft spaces in nevada. the guys in afghanistan launch and recover drones and are responsible for small area operations, usually about air bases. these contractors are constantly looking drones from the air strip, and they pass them off to the guys in las vegas. they fly around a return to drown -- around and return at the control of the drone of two guys in canada are -- to guys in kandahar. they look for any activity. they took a plane and they took the pilot out of the cockpit and put the satellite dish in. the pilot will always control the aircraft. we did that because a regular person could not just sit up there in a small cramped space. no big need for a footprint. flexibility allows you to do that. >> they have video cameras and tv cameras and also have radar taking these snapshots. what you do is in the morning tape one snapshot