pakistan. strategy particularly how afghan governance at all levels will improve and above all, how we will strengthen our partnership with pakistan. as i've said a number of times, i believe that there are just some common sense conditions based on the judgments that we have been hearing from commanders in the field and from our ambassadors that ought to narrow and guide the deployment, the sort of mission tasking, if you will, of our additional troops, and i think those are, are there reliable afghan partners? are there reliable afghan forces to partner with? because the object of this exercise is to transfer the responsibility to them. second, are there local afghan leaders to work with on the ground, because we want them to be invested, and to come in quickly underneath the clear and hole and third is the civilian capacity in place to make the military gains sustainable? i was very pleased to hear general mcchrystal say yesterday that as we plan new operations we're going to take great care

/pakistan relations. as the president made clear in his speech last week our partnership is linked to our efforts in afghanistan. we're committed to a partnership with pakistan that is is built on a foundation mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust. we're not only strengthening pakistan the capacity to target the groups that threaten our countries but providing substantial resources to support democracy and development in pakistan. the president said going forward the pakistani people must know the state department is working closely with military partners to manage two programs.

i will let bill talk about the implications in pakistan. >> i think i pakistan -- i feel pretty much the same way about it that rana does, except i wish he -- than ro does -- that ron does, except as she had not done it. pakistan is also talk about our abandonment -- pakistanis also talk about our abandonment of the region in 1993 as soon as the war was over, not only walked away, but we put sanctions on pakistan for their nuclear program. pakistan at one point in the 1990's was the most sanctioned country in the world, at least u.s. sanctions. they have a long memory, particularly with regard to what the u.s. does, or does not do. that is very, very much in the forefront of their minds. therefore, they have always had -- this has been one of my favorite things lately, is to talk about how pakistan is really kind of living version in politics of the frankenstein legend -- they have created their own monsters, which are now beginning to eat them up, if you will. first of all, they created the taliban, who then attacked pakistan in -- afghanistan in the middle 1990's and took over. and

the second point about pakistan, pakistan has a dynamic, confusing and complex relationship with the syndicate of terrorism, which i talked about earlier. pakistan either created or was the midwife for these terrorist organizations. it retains very close links with some of them. it has been a passive supporter of omar for most of the last seven years and active supporter of omar up until the 12 of september, 2001, when armitage threatened it with being thrown back into the stone age. it has a capacity to both be a patron ofÑi terror and a victimf terror, which is very hard for most western minds to put your head around. it is today very much at war. this is a serious conflicts. the attacks demonstrate that this war is not going particularly well for the pakistani army today. if it spreads further south into the sin, it may deal an economic death blow to pakistan today. why does pakistan have such a complex relationship? because of its obsession with india. the pakistani army believes and has believed for 60 years that asymmetric warfare is part of its tactics for defeating the india

anh pakistan share a common enemy -- enemy. in the past, we have often -- we have too often definedlt>5 our relationship with pakistan nearly. those days are over. we're moving forward with a partnership with pakistan that is built on mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. we will strengthen pakistan's capacity to target groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. america is also providing substantial resources to support pakistan's democracy and development. we are the largest international supporter for those pakistanis this place by the fighting. and going forward, the pakistani people must know america will remain a strong supporter for security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. these are the three core elements of our strategy. a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that re

and pakistan the u.s. would be able to go in and help secure those weapons if such a need were to arise? >> that's not an issue here. the issue is the nuclear confidence we have. we have as i said before much higher levels that we have confidence pakistanis have the ability to maintain security of their nuclear weapons. and i'll rest with what's been said before. and this is an area of course that's very sensitive and important to the government and to the people of pakistan. and one reason that we want -- i want to be very clear. we are saying that we have confidence in the government, the people and the military of pakistan and we've talked to them about this issue in ways that give us that confidence. >> you have mentioned the pakistanis want to us do things we're not going to do and pakistanis want us to do things that we're not going to do. what are these things? >> i'm not going into them. i talked about sensitive issues. but broadly speaking, people always want more. and we have limits in terms of o

you ve problems with al qaeda in pakistan, pblems with t liban in pakistan. what the do about tt if you are in afghastan? >> what you are basically doing is going to the place in illinois whe al cone w ved to eliminate organized crim -- oe lived to elimina ganized crime. al qaeda has left the premises. admiral mi mullen says that one of the reasons the talan as recruits and ny in afghanistan is they p better wages. if t afghan army started paying betr wages, you would have a biddi war. let pakistan's message be very clear -- if you want special treatment, that we are n going afterhem,ecause they ha been soft on goingfter al qaeda, giving safe enclaves to taliban,ust get yourself a nuclear weapon and you will be trted differently. >> no wonder iran wants nuclear weapon >> the psident'sessagen al qaeda is misleading. these toll the cogen guments against what would y ve -- it leadso all theode in arguments about why wou you have it infghanistan if there is aew al qaeda there? it is about radical islam. we cannot allow rical islam to succeed in that ea. it is nle

. -- to flourish in pakistan. pakistan is now taking action in these areas. -- made clear by president obama is also clear, however, that more action needs to be taken if al qaeda is operating within pakistan and operating within that country and seeking further space to operate, it is the duty of the pakistani authorities to work with international partners to attempt to isolate al qaeda and pakistan. i do not think there is any contradiction. it is important to recognize it is important also to recognize that for the last eight years, al qaeda has been able to send instructions from pakistan to the rest of the world and to organize from pakistan terrorist attacks that have affected every continent. speaker, we are providing the additional troops -- mr. speaker we are providing the additional troops. it is a unique coalition that has never before been assembled, one that involves the nato terrorist problem. i believe we are giving the troops the equipment and resources necessary to do the i hope all country will

policy toward pakistan and afghanistan. we will start on the role of executive pay in our economy as an engine of growth or if you think it works against the economic direction of the country. we were having this in light of the "the wall street journal" story that the payç czar plansa $500,000 cap for salaries for companies taking government money. that is the debate, the role of executive pay in our economy. host: a good thursday morning. i just want to show you briefly the three articles starting hour debate and we will come back and show a little more detail in a minute. "the wall street journal" is our reference. the front-page lead story. we will dig into that later. but relatedç to that, front pae of "the financial times," it jeffrey m. oates, chief of general electric, in a speech -- jeffrey immelt. here is a little bit of the reporting of the story. host: a very different view from the government of new york, david paterson, gives wall street a "thank you." host: there are some different views. we would like to

you've been to pakistan. if you had an opportunity to speak to president obama, what would you offer his advice as this point in time? >> well, he hasn't called. but i think sometimes when i rook at the issues that plague large parts of south asia, the issue sometimes are similar to the cold war issues that the u.s. and the soviets faced for a long time. one the things i'd love to see is obviously i'm a fan of diplomacy. i'm a fan of dialect. i'd love to see the summit where iran is brought into the solution. we do listen to him. i think when it comes to a military solution in afghanistan, i know there are enormous pitfalls to pulling out. because it's not -- it's a very complex situation. but i do not think the answer is a military answer. very having been there, seen it, having driven all through the northern parts of the country. it's not afghanistan in particular is not a place where centralized government has ever been effective. whether there's been outside powers there or not. it's not a country that r

so, is pakistan an ally or foe? >> in this photograph heightened security and increased tensions as travelers move around the country and coming into the u.s. the headline in the "new york times" is that the suspect in the terror attempt claims ties to al qaeda although there are questions as to how close they were. guest: well, claims of ties to al qaeda. you can simply be a disciple of al qaeda and say i'm doing it on behalf of al qaeda. al qaeda is now sort of a brand, and anybody who decides to do something can do it in the name of al qaeda as if it were some sort of franchise. so, we don't know yet -- or i don't know yet -- whether there guy was directed by al qaeda, whether he was paid by al qaeda, whether he was taking secret phepbls from al qaeda -- messages from al qaeda or whether he was acting alone in the name of al qaeda. it too early to tell that. but i think one thing we can conclude from this is that al qaeda is now a force out there in the muslim world and it is not going to go away even if we kill

pakistan is the real problem. why? because it was started for religious regions and others have developed for image or security ping and made it clear that to we will develop a muslim and we will share it with the muslim world. that may have changed. the general did not last long an office and generals never do. his plane exploded mysteriously but there is some brand of the philosophy that continues. today pakistan has no government but a president and his claim to fame is he is benazir bhutto with a word which is how he got elected and spent six years in the slammer in pakistan for corruption. two him, everything is for sale and what does he have that as the most valuable asset? and nuclear-weapons satisfy i think they will buy weapons from pakistan. that is a good news because al qaeda will be in charge then you must understand getting nuclear-weapons before 9/11 the al qaeda operatives from the mountains and afghanistan met with a pakistani nuclear type who were believers and fanatics and had conversations about get

more on pakistan and stop worrying about india and some indian/pakistan conflict? >> president obama in march, his strategy thenfocus, and i was a big supporter of this, on the region and greatly focused on afghanistan and pakistan but it really is the reason and india is a big player in that region as well, and i think all of us, international players, particular regional players vshs to take steps to stabilize and the relationship between pakistan and india is critical and leadership there must i think step forward to stabilize that border more than anything else and i think that would be a great step forward in stabilizing the region. >> the time has expired. gentlemen fra california. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. i would ask the witnesses this. general mcchrystal notes in his assessment that the afghan insurgency is clearly supported from pakistan, and that insurgent groups are reportedly aided by some elements of pakistan's isi. now, for the longest time as i can remember we've had a dysfunctional relationship with pakistan in which many of the presum

i guess it is about pakistan. given that the obama administration several times during the last few months has talked about pakistan, are you concerned about pressure on the pakistani army to go after the taliban will ultimately undermine the cohesion of the pakistani army? and eventually the the stabilization of pakistan? -- that the stabilization -- de stabilization of pakistan? >> i do not believe so. the border is not even agreed on and the patterns of kinship along the disputed border. are we concerned about these users? you bet. pakistani officials have said publicly prior to the president's decision and cents to send 30,000 additional troops, they said very clearly and very honestly, in 2002 you drop the taliban and al qaeda east into pakistan without consulting us were preparing us, and we inherited the consequences. we need to be consulted. and stan mcchrystal, with our strong encouragement, and ambassador i eikenberry as well, go to islamabad pretty regularly. they talk to the government and the military

and pakistan in this case. and you would say well for good reason don't be naive, this is a very difficult situation. as you said, secretary clinton, we have a long way to go. this is a growing relationship. you've been in the countryside visiting places the president has now chosen to visit as he has hobbled there in the capitol. a very tough business. but i suppose asking today, and i agree with the chairman of the concentration on the number of troops, the number of months of what ever is going to happen in the urban areas of the 11 provinces, this is important. but what is crucial is whether any of the three of you collectively or the president, vice president, general jones, anyone else in your team is going to be able to deal with the leadership in pakistan whether it be the civil military or intelligence leadership. so there is a matter of fact they are prepared to face what we are all seeing as the problem. the border area al qaeda, osama bin laden. no one wants to talk about osama bin laden. isn't this

and it is about pakistan, about the effect of our policy in pakistan. given that the obama administration several times during the last two months has said pakistan is a party that are you concerned that the mayor can pressure around the pakistani army to go after the afghan taliban inside baluchistan will ultimately undermine the cohesion of the pakistani army with and contribute to the destabilization of pakistan? is that sort of concern? >> i don't think any american official ever said quote pakistan is the prize, uncle. but what we did say and i will repeat again today, is that you can't separate the interconnectedness of the two countries. and the previous question illustrate why. the borders are not agreed on. and there are postern intermarried kinship patterns, family ties across them the disputed border. are we concerned about these issues? you bet. pakistani officials have said publicly prior to the president's decision and since the president's decision has sent 30000 additional troops, they said very clear he very honestly, you know, and 2002

. -- to flourish in pakistan. pakistan is now taking action in these areas. -- made clear by president obama is also clear, however, that more action needs to be taken if al qaeda is operating within pakistan and operating within that country and seeking further space to operate, it is the duty of the pakistani authorities to work with international partners to attempt to isolate al qaeda and pakistan. i do not think there is any contradiction. it is important to recognize it is important also to recognize that for the last eight years, al qaeda has been able to send instructions from pakistan to the rest of the world and to organize from pakistan terrorist attacks that have affected every continent. speaker, we are providing the additional troops -- mr. speaker we are providing the additional troops. it is a unique coalition that has never before been assembled, one that involves the nato terrorist problem. i believe we are giving the troops the equipment and resources necessary to do the i hope all country will

pakistan. that will make the job so much easier. so that said, we are very, very [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> congress continues its look at president obama's afghanistan strategy tomorrow. you hear from the top military commander, general mcchrystal. we will bring the that live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. next on c-span, president obama on the economy. then the house debate peninsula -- financial and assure regulation. then general petraeus's capitol hill testimony on the war in afghanistan. on tomorrows "washington journal" a look ahead white house strategists. vali nasar is this policies in afghanistan and pakistan. we will talk to scott garrett about financial regulations but a also come in the headed the congressional tarp oversight panel, elizabeth warren. "washington journal" is live beginning 7:00 a.m. eastern europe c-span. >> american icon, three original documentaries from c- span are

troops in pakistan. >> no, no. there's no -- absolutely no provision nor no discussion of putting any u.s. troops in pakistan. save the support troops that we have. there we've got troops small number of troops training at the pakistani government and pakistani military request as they address this fight. but outside that kind of training support no other troops. >> lehrer: that border area between pakistan and afghanistan can be handled without u.s. troops going over to the other side? >> well, it actually has to be. i look at this strategically over the long run that it's the pressure brought from the east, if you will, on the western border of pakistan and the pressure in afghanistan that will eventually allow us to get at and eliminate those safe havens. i also believe that pakistan's future will in great part be driven by what kind of country afghanistan is, stable or unstable. and that a stable supportive government in afghanistan will be very helpful to how pakistan looks at its future and the decisions it m

andrews and some others made and that's about pakistan and the importance of pakistan and the importance of our winning, succeeding, having victory in afghanistan of not letting the taliban take control in afghanistan, the importance of that to pakistan. it is your judgment that should we fail in afghanistan, should the taliban re-emerge, pakistan and its nuclear weapons and its democracy would be in grave danger? >> i believe it would be a significant threat to pakistan were the taliban to succeed in afghanistan. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. kissell? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. and general mcchrystal, i want to go back. you said that three biggest challenges you felt we had was the growing an army, the governance and the afghan palme themselves. and i like to give both of you comments on this and i ask you the same question, i was in afghanistan back in early november. the sense of afghan nationalism versus all the other influences of tribal, history, religion, is there a strong e

now we have the taliban pakistan, the taliban in pakistan whose target is the pakistan government and who are working closely with al qaeda along with their compatriots in afghanistan. >> in addition to the inspirational and aspirational role that al qaeda plays, they provide very specific services. they help provide funding. they help provide targeting and training and equipping. very often they have their planners working closely with the elements of the taliban and both afghanistan and it is in order -- certainly are on presence and our troops. i do not think there is any doubt in the longer that there has been a developing senega of terror. those tentacles reach far and wide, they reach to somalia and yemen, etc. their focus and grounded in the border area between pakistan and afghanistan. it is our assessment, it might been possible if we had gone at it differently in the beginning of this war to have captured and killed enough of al qaeda and taliban leadership to have made a difference, but we are where we are right now. >> if i could be permitted one final question, another po

. -- to flourish in pakistan. pakistan is now taking action in these areas. -- made clear by president obama is also clear, however, that more action needs to be taken if al qaeda is operating within pakistan and operating within that country and seeking further space to operate, it is the duty of the pakistani authorities to work with international partners to attempt to isolate al qaeda and pakistan. i do not think there is any contradiction. it is important to recognize it is important also to recognize that for the last eight years, al qaeda has been able to send instructions from pakistan to the rest of the world and to organize from pakistan terrorist attacks that have affected every continent. speaker, we are providing the additional troops -- mr. speaker we are providing the additional troops. it is a unique coalition that has never before been assembled, one that involves the nato terrorist problem. i believe we are giving the troops the equipment and resources necessary to do the i hope all country will

i will let bill talk about the implications in pakistan. >> i think i pakistan -- i feel pretty much the same way about it that rana does, except i wish he -- than ro does -- that ron does, except as she had not done it. pakistan is also talk about our abandonment -- pakistanis also talk about our abandonment of the region in 1993 as soon as the war was over, not only walked away, but we put sanctions on pakistan for their nuclear program. pakistan at one point in the 1990's was the most sanctioned country in the world, at least u.s. sanctions. they have a long memory, particularly with regard to what the u.s. does, or does not do. that is very, very much in the forefront of their minds. therefore, they have always had -- this has been one of my favorite things lately, is to talk about how pakistan is really kind of living version in politics of the frankenstein legend -- they have created their own monsters, which are now beginning to eat them up, if you will. first of all, they created the taliban, who then attacked pakistan in -- afghanistan in the middle 1990's and took over. and

could they be under arrest in pakistan for terrorism? we've got all the latest. and then, war and peace for president obama. he's on his way to oslo to receive the nobel peace prize. why is the man who just ordered 30,000 more troops to afghanistan accepting it? >>> plus, sarah palin's approval ratings are on the rise. the president's are going the other way. the honor tiger woods won't be getting. we'll debate it all next on "larry king live." good evening. five missing muslim men from virginia have been found and arrested in pakistan. the men are from the alexandria area. all in their early 20s. some members of the muslim community alerted authorities on suspicions that the men may have been planning terrorist attacks. joining us in washington, jeanne me serve, and the director of the council of islamic relations who has spoken to the families of the missing students. he's viewed a videotape left behind by one of the students. he said it disturbed him. and the former muslim chaplain at howard university. knows one of the students. he has spoken to the fbi. jean

the afghan town, the pakistan talent and -- the afghan and pakistan caliban -- taliban -- a whole bunch of other groups whose eight -- whose names are interchangeable but we know are the same basic characters are a syndicate of terror. there are not a monolith. they do not have one single leader or agenda. they cooperate with each other. individuals within these movements move back and forth between organizations. if they do not respect what we tried to impose on them. most of all, none of them in eight years had been willing to turn on al qaeda and give up its core leadership. what is remarkable when you look at it is that more than any other individual, is omar that they pledge allegiance to. he claims to be commander of the faithful. a title which, if you think about it, shows a man with a remarkable ego. "commander of the faithful"of a 1.6 billion muslims? i am very skeptical we can negotiate. i am skeptical we can negotiate with someone who has an inflated sense of his own importance. al qaeda today is embedded in a larger syndicate of terror which is why it is so hard to go after

pakistan. the most recent series of violent attacks killing hundreds including women and children underscores the importance of counterering the insurgency. there will be ongoing humanitarian needs in pakistan as the government continues to take military action against extremist groups. we're proud of our successful contributions to this humanitarian effort. the responsibilities and interests i've described are shared by governments around the world. our nato allies and other international community partners already made significant contributions of in their own in afghanistan and pakistan. most recently the nato min stairal in brussels, allies pledged to contribute approximately 7,000 difficult troops for fging if and in all 25 countries plemped to do more in terms of troops trainers and trust fund monies. the task we face is as complex as any national security challenge in our lifetime. we will not succeed if this effort is viewed as the responsibility of a single party, agency or country. we

thirdly, let me talk about pakistan. it is today the strategic prize in this part of the world as well as the most dangerous country in the world. why do i say that? because all the things that should worry americans about the future of the world in the 21st century come together in pakistan in a unique and combustible way. nuclear war and peace. proliferation of nuclear technology. terrorism. the future of islam. the future of democracy in the islamic world. the relationship between the military and civil society in the islamic world. all of these issues are alive in pakistan like they are nowhere else in the world. pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world today. it has more terrorists per square kilometer than any other country in the world. it is the world's second largest muslim country. and yet, its government is teetering on the brink of collapse. pakistan is trying to make the transition from a military dictatorship to something pakistanis hope will look like democracy. we should support that

and they suspected that pakistan was the final desation. that is why the state department reached out and informed pakistani authority they might be there. >> you have viewed the video, is that correct? >> yes,dy. >> larry: how did you obtain it? >> the families brought it with them in the presence of lawyers. >> larry: what disturbed you about it? >> it's almost like a video on the internet. young muslims misread and misunderstanding verses of the koran to justify actions they would like to take. that is disturbing in light of the fact these students have been described as up right, engaging, great, you know, sons. >> larry: did it lead you to think they may be up to no good? >> yeah. when you add it together, yeah. i just walked away with that feeling and i think the same feeling the families had when they watched the video. and that prompted them to contact the leaders of the mosque who connected them with us and brought them to the office and i want to take a moment to thank the families for your courage and the lead eership of the mosq

the real bad guys are in pakistan and that's the real problem. what's pakistan prepared to do? and i think the challenge for this president is -- republicans should be happy with his plan. it's essentially what they wanted. they'll argue about inarctic -- about an articulated exit strategy. they were clear on the program saying there's a time, that will go on as much as five years and that's just the goal, a complete handoff to karzai in five years, so that assumes that everything works. i think all of that is in placements again, we'll see what the conditions are for the president down the line to say, hey, we're not winning but it's time to come home. >> it seemed like a sideshow in this city but it's a very, very live issue for the british politics as well. british troops have been dying in afghanistan in disturbingly large numbers and as you mentioned, the war has become increasingly unpopular. how does this decision by president obama play out politically in britain? >> one of the interesting things is that gordon brown is starting to talk about drawdown troops. there's be

that being the case, what about pakistan? pakistan is where the crux of the problem is. but yet, it is the least emphasis where we've seen our strategy. that's where al qaeda is. that's where the real apex of this situation is is. will our troops be able to go into pakistan and do exactly what the mission says, destroy, dismantle and see that doesn't return to pakistan? >> sir, the importance of the mission against al qaeda is absolutely clear. as commander of isaf, my responsibility or my authorities stop at the border of afghanistan and pakistan. we do, however, work very is hard and i personally spend a lot of time with general kiani developing a strategic partnership to enable them to meet their strategic objectives. >> let me just ask you because i only have just a few minutes and i have a number of questions. to your knowledge, of your involvement with the joint strategy with pakistan, to your knowledge, will our troops be able to go into pakistan? >> sir, i'm -- i'm really out of my lane to discuss that. >> okay. let me ask you about nato and our troops. nato has

we must make clear that our relationship with pakistan is rounded in support for pakistan's democratic institutions and the pakistani people and to demonstrate through deeds as well as words, we must stand for lasting opportunity. campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. al qaeda offers the people of pakistan nothing but destruction. we stand for something different. so today, i'm calling upon congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by john kerry and richard lugar that offers $1 billion in support for the pakistani people every year for the next five year, which will build schools, roads, and hospitals and strengthen their democracy. i'm also calling on congress to pass another bill that creates opportunity zones to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. we will ask our friends and allies to do their part, including at the donor's conference in tokyo next month. i don't ask for this support lightly. these are challenging times. resources are stretched. but the american people must understand that this is a down paymen

policy in afghanistan and pakistan. the muslim public affairs council discusses the fort hood shooting at their annual meeting. and william eggers talks about what government does and does not do well. later, a recent speech by secretary of state hillary clinton on human rights. >> beginning monday, a rare glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices about the court, there were, and history of the taconic supreme court building. five days of interviews with supreme court justices starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. get your own copy of our original documentary on the supreme court on dvd, part of the american icons collection, a three disc set including programs of the white house and the capital. one of the many items c- span.org. /store. >> former cia analyst chaired president obama's initial policy review on afghanistan and pakistan. he now gives a historical perspective of the past eight years of american presence in the region, the president's decisi

i also thank the gentleman for raising the issue of pakistan. raising the issue of pakistan. a reminder that there is@@@@@ @r be partnering with ambassador eikenberry and the government of afghanistan's team for governance. because where we create security, it is not durable without governance. and then i think the last, of course, is probably just getting at the psychological aspects of the afghan people as they are coerced by the insurgency. it plays into everything else, but convincing them is a critical task at hand. >> thank you for making that concise. your first point was the security forces, and that was going to be a question i wanted to ask more about. and that is, what would you say is the condition of the security forces in afghanistan? we're on a committee with chairman snyder here and we looked at the same thing in iraq. and you have to oh sort of build up and build. what is the status of the forces in general, if you can do it fairly quickly? >> yes, sir. together the afghan national security forces are just about 190,000 people assigned, or on the rolls right

pakistan is not afghanistan. pakistan is a nuclear power. host: how many of you are involved in some way in student government? you're involved in your own version of student government treat your the president of the freshman class. what does that mean? guest: by the way, i was president of my high school and vice president of my college. i was also president of my graduate school class as well. it's a great way to start in politics. it teaches you a lot about how things work. i have been elected to the president of the freshman class of congress. it is about 40 members. i organize meetings and tried to get speakers, and tried to see that there can't be some common ground that we can use as some leverage. for example, on health care bill that was finally passed by the house, i led the effort to look of what is called the pay for. senator charles grassley talked- about tax increases in health- care. the tax increases in the house bill, unlike the senate bill, is essentially on millionaires. a family has to earn $1 million or more before any

pakistan, and a nuclear-arms pakistan that drives our mission. . in fact, the conditions that permit the reduction in american troops in afghanistan are a benefit to pakistan. the president was correct to define success in terms of our ability to empower and transfer responsibility to afghans as rapidly as possible. while simultaneously in achieving -- achieving level of stability [unintelligible] as i have said before to each extra family that is asked to send a family member into harm's way, at the deployment of a single additional soldier makes all the difference. a public debate that reduces the complex mission to a headline that says all of the service. what will matter most on the ground in afghanistan is not the number of troops but what they will do and how they are integrated into a broader civilian and military strategy. i returned from afghanistan in october with serious concerns that even if additional troops are able to clear the enemy and hold the area, even in limited areas where we will operate, unless we were able to build and tran

pakistan is critical. their role in the areas around the border, the stability their of their government, and the stability of their military is vital. that is a whole other question that our troops in afghanistan will not resolve. pakistan continues to be a key player. i do not want to use the word ally -- but a key player mingo wish to concentrate efforts and resources to stabilize the pakistani government and let them be part of the fight. at this point i really think our presence there will raise the insurgency as opposing to quell and rudolf al qaeda. host: thank you, representative. we will hear from the president regarding the difficulties in this mission. after that we will talk with representative mike, republican from colorado, and a member of the house armed services committee. >> none of this will be easy. the struggle against a violent extremism will not be finished quickly and it extends well beyond afghanistan and pakistan. it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership i

that of course leads me to pakistan, a strong, stable democratic pakistan must be a keyboard and for the united states and an ally in the fight against violent extremism. we have seen progress of this past year as people in pakistan increasingly come to the view that we share a common enemy. i heard that repeatedly during my recent visit but we have a long way to go. we will significantly expand, support to develop the potential pakistan and its people demonstrating a long-term commitment. i spent three days in pakistan last month and most commonly i heard over and over again, you left us before, will you do it again? he walked away. you left us holding the problem you helped to create. we want to send a clear message as the kerry-lugar berman legislation does that we intend to be committed over the long term. we will not be facing the challenges alone. we have 42 other troop contributing countries. car nato allies the party made significant contributions. after this hearing i will leave for brussels to begin the process of securing additional afghan commitments. ambassador holbrooke

will our troops be able to go in to pakistan and do exactly what, to see that it doesn't return to pakistan's? >> imports of the mission against al qaeda is absolutely clear. as commander, my responsibility or my authority stop at the border of afghanistan and pakistan. we do however work very hard, and i personally spent a lot of time with general kiyani, developing a strategic partnership to enable them to meet their strategic objective spirit let me ask it again because i only have a few minutes. i will have a number of questions. to your knowledge, of your involvement with the joint strategy with pakistan, to your knowledge will our troops be able to go into pakistan? >> sir, i'm really out of my lane to discuss that. >> all right. let me ask you, about nato and our troops. nato has said they are sending around 7000, 6000, 7000 troops. those troops come with caveats. can you comment briefly on what that presents to you were a nation may send soldiers but they tell them you can go, you can see, but you can't conquer. you can't get in the battle. you must sit on the bench. what does that do

the second point about pakistan is that pakistan has a dynamic, confusing and complex relationship with the syndicate of terrorism which i talked about earlier. pakistan either created or was the midwife for many of these terrorist organizations. it retains very close links with some of them, particularly with -- [unintelligible] it is then it passes support ofmullah omar -- of mullah omar, up until 2001, when richard partridge threatened it with being thrown back into the stone age. it has the capacity to be a patron of terror and a victim of terror, which is very hard for most western mind to put their head around. it is very much at the war -- with this frankenstein. the attacks of the shower demonstrate that this is not going very well -- in pahawar. if it spreads further south, it may deal in economic death blow to pakistan today. why does pakistan have such a complex relationship? because of its obsession with india. the pakistani army believes and has believed for 60 years the debt asymmetric warfare as part of its tactics for defeating the indians. it is not succeeded. it has no

the president does not dwell on pakistan in his speech on tuesday evening. perhaps because sensitivity in the country to american influences and intentions are extremely delicate but the president and his team must justify their plan not only on the basis of how what will affect afghanistan but also on how it will impact promoting a much stronger alliance with pakistan that embraces vital common objectives. having made these observations i want to recognize the presidents has been confronted with extremely difficult choices in afghanistan and pakistan. he and his team have worked through the problem carefully and deliberately to reach their conclusions. there are no options available that are guaranteed to succeed and every conceivable chorus from complete withdrawal to maintaining the status quo to a plan outlined by the president to an unrestrained and unlimited counterinsurgency campaign has its own set of risks and costs for the united states. the president deserves credit for accepting ownership of this difficult problem as we go forward and for his cle

he didn't talk about pakistan but pakistan is all over this speech. and the simple truth is, that as he said, you can't get at al qaeda in pakistan without doing more in afghanistan. so i think that he's going to put a lot of pressure on the pakistanis and give them a lot of help and expect them to do a lot more directly against al qaeda while the u.s. forces in afghanistan also work against al qaeda and work for a very minimalist objective with the idea of getting ourselves out of there in a responsible way pretty quickly. >> larry: general kimmitt? >> well, the substance of the speech was good. we got what we needed. the troops are going to get what they need. the generals are going to get what they need. what i was concerned was, a couple of the comments made by the president that left unanswered questions. first of all, i was hoping to see a speech that demonstrated resolve and commitment. i think many people walked away from that speech unsure of where the president really stands, where america stands. that's not good for our allies and that's ve

and my personal view is that we increase aid to pakistan. with regard to the sanctuaries, i believe and general petreaus also shares this view -- in fact i think he said it today publicly to journalists -- i believe that the pakistani have made considerable progress this year. they took on the terrorists s andwat and disperse them. they moved into south waziristan, and the fighting there is continuing. there are all sorts of activities to stand up to the taliban in the west. is it enough? well, obviously we want them to do as much as they will do. going to demand of a sovereign country what they have to do. they know what they should do in terms of their own interest and ours. we are engaged in a most intense dialogue under the most complicated c@bbumstances. all of you who suffered south asia -- who served south asia understand that the interaction creates complicated dynamics and the history between pakistan and afghanistan since 1947 has been exceedingly complicated, and let us not forget the origins of what we're dealing with go back to

afghanistan and pakistan really are connected at the hip. and the strategy that vice president biden suggested of just going with drones would not do the job because the pakistanis would not be willing to increase that project, the drone project to the extent that i think vice president biden would hope. and in fact, if they thought we were leaving afghanistan, as i said before, they would be more likely to actually help the afghan taliban and to refuse to give us permission to target them on the pakistani side of the border. in fact, the pakistani government has not yet given permission for the expansion of the drone program. >> in january the vice president traveled to afghanistan. how important was that trip in shaping his view and the president's view? guest: very important to the vice president's view. he had a very rough time with karzi on that trip. he tells a story about talking to ten different military commanders and getting ten different answers to what the mission is there. so he came back with a sense from that trip of a very we

we face a range of difficult choices in afghanistan and pakistan. but the president's plan represents the best way we know to protect our nation today and in the future. the task we face is as complex as any national security challenge in our lifetimes. we will not succeed if people view this effort as a responsibility of a single party, a single agency within our government or a single country. we owe it to the troops and civilians who are face these dangers to come together as americans. and come together with allies and international partners who are ready to step up and do more. we have to accomplish this mission. and i look forward to working with you to help meet this challenge. thank you all very much. >> thank you, very much, madame secretary. admiral mull snn. >> mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members thof committee, thank you for your time today. let me state right up front i support fully and without hesitation the president's decision. and i appreciate the opportunity to contribute to what i believe was a healthy and product

in fac, youncludeded pakistan in the overall mission. explain wha you mean. >> well, pakistan, when the preside rolled out his strategy on -- in rch of this year one bi difference from the previs strategies was this is a regionaltrategy. so it's not focusing onoof beg stand alone or paktan. but the rion. and in fact, we shoun't forgethat the main goal there isto eliminatehe safehavens for al qaeda and make issue they ca't return to afghantan or pakistan in the ture. pakistan's a soveign country. they've taken sigficant steps in the last year. they'vetaken significant casualties a recentlygain as today where there was another bombing in lahore. they're taking this teat to themsees very seriously so the long-te view i we would look for a panership with pakista and afghanistan ine astable region and to have that long-tm relationship be o similar to what w have with othercountries. >> lehrerbut not put u.s. troops pakistan. >> no, no. there's no -- absolutely no provion nor no discuson of putting any u.s. troops in pakistan. save the support

and pakistan. i think that's the main problem and, you know, the troops aren't going to be able to go to pakistan. what's going to happen with that? i think he doesn't have too many choices, but the problem in afghanistan, the problem is in pakistan and what to do at that. >> thank you. more reaction. we covered a news conference on capitol hill with a number of so-called progressive democrats opposing the war in afghanistan. one of those in attendance, senator russ feingold was issued a statement. he said i do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight the war in afghanistan. that is no longer in our national security interests. he went on to say it is an expensive gamble, says senator feingold, 200 undertake it under a corrupt government. sending more troops could further destabilize afghanistan and more importantly pakistan says senator feingold, a nuclear armed state where al qaeda is headquartered. canada is joining us from detroit. your reaction to the speech toni

speaker, the prime minister referred to pakistan. he knows the great sacrifices being made by the civilian population and the military in pakistan. did he discuss with president karzai the importance of effective cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan, particularly in combating extremism in the areas on both sides? >> prime minister. my honorable friend, as you all know, we wish to work with the pakistan equipment not simply to work with the problem of the pakistan taliban as we have done with the small territory, but we want to work with them to work with whether those areas where there are problems also with the afghan taliban in pakistan. so we want to see the maximum cooperation between president karzai and the pakistani authorities including president zardai and of course prime minister galadi. we want to see more effective corporations. in the end we want joint measures that will protect the border areas. operation in afghanistan and pakistan is going to be very much in more in future years and i am before we have the lev

i guess it is about pakistan. given that the obama administration several times during the last few months has talked about pakistan, are you concerned about pressure on the pakistani army to go after the taliban will ultimately undermine the cohesion of the pakistani army? and eventually the the stabilization of pakistan? -- that the stabilization -- de stabilization of pakistan? >> i do not believe so. the border is not even agreed on and the patterns of kinship along the disputed border. are we concerned about these users? you bet. pakistani officials have said publicly prior to the president's decision and cents to send 30,000 additional troops, they said very clearly and very honestly, in 2002 you drop the taliban and al qaeda east into pakistan without consulting us were preparing us, and we inherited the consequences. we need to be consulted. and stan mcchrystal, with our strong encouragement, and ambassador i eikenberry as well, go to islamabad pretty regularly. they talk to the government and the military

so, is pakistan an ally or foe? >> in this photograph heightened security and increased tensions as travelers move around the country and coming into the u.s. the headline in the "new york times" is that the suspect in the terror attempt claims ties to al qaeda although there are questions as to how close they were. guest: well, claims of ties to al qaeda. you can simply be a disciple of al qaeda and say i'm doing it on behalf of al qaeda. al qaeda is now sort of a brand, and anybody who decides to do something can do it in the name of al qaeda as if it were some sort of franchise. so, we don't know yet -- or i don't know yet -- whether there guy was directed by al qaeda, whether he was paid by al qaeda, whether he was taking secret phepbls from al qaeda -- messages from al qaeda or whether he was acting alone in the name of al qaeda. it too early to tell that. but i think one thing we can conclude from this is that al qaeda is now a force out there in the muslim world and it is not going to go away even if we kill

the situation in afghanistan and pakistan is serious. it is not as negative as frequently portrayed in public. and the beginning of president karazai's term has opened a new window of opportunity. we will continue to pursue them. in the inauguration speech, i witnessed his call for a new compact with this country. he pledged to deliver for the people of this country. the words were long in coming up but will come. they must be met with action. we must hold the afghan government accountable for making good on the commitments. we will work to strengthen institutions on every level of afghan society. the president has outlined a time frame for a transition to afghan irresponsibility, something that the president assumed would happen and which we took as a very good sign of a renewed understanding of the necessity of afghan as asian -- afghanization. they will have the capacity to start assuming ownership for defending their own country. as the president has said, we will execute the transition irresponsibly, taking into account conditions o