tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 20, 2016 2:59pm-5:00pm EST
more for it than it to be finished. one decisively by the forces of good. i don't need to tell you that we are not there yet. as the trump administration considers how america engages with afghanistan and how it fits into their foreign policy and national security goals, one overriding fact is indisputable. the rationale for u.s. involvement in afghanistan remains as urgent today as it was on september 11, 2001. as general nicholson pointed out earlier this month, to quote him, out of the 98 u.s. designated terrorist organizations, globally, 20 of them are in the accpac region. ..
>> and partners who were defending their country and defeating terrorists . even without the presence of the terrorist groups, the afghan of today faces considerable threats from the caliban whose greatest wish is to destroy us afghan partnerships. but the chaos, violence, instability that the taliban creates by the oxygen the other terrorists groups need to thrive. without question, this year our brave afghan national security forces were severely tested. but they prevailed. they prevented the enemy from accomplishing its strategic objective. yes, since august, the taliban has made eight
attempts to seize capitals, three times in good news, twice in peace, once in florida. each time afghan forces defeat, does anyone here remember what they did on october 6 or the 10th? in afghanistan on that day the enemy launched for simultaneous attacks on our city. our forces turned back one of them. now, it's not an admission of weakness to stand here and tell you that despite the accomplishments and successes, afghanistan and its forces will not only not be able to defeat the entire spectrum of armed insurgents and terrorist operating in afghanistan,rather, it's a reflection of the reality . our modern military is only 15 years old. our forces lack the necessary close air support,
sophisticated intelligence gathering equipment and medevac capability but more importantly, this fight is not ours alone. it never has been. it's despite peaceful nations everywhere who are my vote stateless andstate-sponsored terrorists . a centerpiece of the us national security policy has long been to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the terrorist networks that threaten america. nothing i've heard suggests that president trump wouldn't continue that policy. if that is the case, then he and his successors need to consider an enduring partnership with afghanistan based on mutual commitment . stability and afghanistan cannot occur unless we are at peace but sustainability requires much more than simply being at peace.
first and foremost, we must have political stability. despite how it looks from the outside, weare moving closer to political stability today . yes, it sometimes seems messy but what you are watching is the maturing process that every new democracy must go through as it decides how it wants to govern and implement it self area of disagreement and debate that stirs up in the public view and makes headlines are necessary growing pains. more importantly, they are the first step toward agreements, decision and action. if we weren't having messy disagreements about our election, how our election should be held, our ministry should be run and how our public services should be delivered, we might be having a messy civil war. so this is progress . this represents promise and this should be understood by anyone who assesses the strength of the currentafghan government .
finally, this morning, i want to give you a snapshot of how afghanistan is doing on its nonsecurity related goals area and i'm referring to progress that is improving the lives and opportunities for all afghans, moving the country closer to economic self-reliance and strengthening our position as a roundabout modern growth. as the economic and transport rates between central and south asia, europe and the far east, resident of money has made cooperation in activity a top priority and it has paid off. we have forgedthrough central asia and china and india . i would like to list a few highlights. the first, china recently arrived in afghanistan as part of the fight nation railway corridor connecting china with iran. more than half of that, 2100
kilometer track will run through afghanistan.the potential impact, economic impact on trade cannot be underestimated. nor can the positive effects this could have on regional stability and integration. afghanistan's interim minister opened the first part of the lapis lazuli railway which will conduct our two countries for the first time and extend east and north to europe. we are working out the details of an air corridor with india to give our farmers and traders unrestricted accessto the indian market . the cost of 1000 electricity transmission and trade project will bring electricity surpluses from his accent and the serb republic to pakistan and afghanistan. the existing power line will connect south asia and central asia via afghanistan.
a new trilateral agreement with india gives afghanistan access to deepwater ports in southern iran. this summer we finished the long-delayed dam ahead of schedule. it will irrigate 50,000 family farms and provide power to 4000 rural families and give us a reliable source of electricity. this summer, we finished the long-delayed kentucky hydropower plant and we began work on the third part of that hydropower plant with a turkish clan to begin network. when these new turbines are installed, and development work is complete, it will produce triple the amount of electricity it currently
does, irrigate 100,000 additional hectares of land and enable the construction of new agricultural canals. afghanistan's oil, gas and mineral wealth is estimated at $3 billion. recently, it became, we became a member of the wto, opening more trade opportunities for afghan businesses. just in the last year we have secured missions for investments, over $1.1 billion from the private sector alone. 700 billion of that is an energysector , pledged over a 20 year timeframe. at the citizen level, we have instituted sweeping reforms to end land grabs and property rights to urban residents . with insecure occupancy situations. our new citizen starter program gives local community councils control over public funded projects and empowers them to hold ministries
accountable for state services. nearly 1 million new students were enrolled rolled in school last year and the girls now make up 40 percent of all schoolchildren. our media is the freest in the region, our job release program is in place in 5000 communities and has created 2.6 million laborers. our national economic and power transformation launches next month with new education and training opportunities and stronger legal status for women. combat interruption, we have replaced 25 percent of customs officials and more than 600 judges. 95 percent of government officials have publicly cleared their cameras. the commission has saved $220 million by rejecting corrupt contracts and blacklisting 71
companies and we now have a five strategic plan, the afghanistan national development framework that was endorsed by the international community at the brussels conference in october. it lays out a long-term economic and human development plan for afghanistan. it articulates our immediate and long-term priorities, highlights new reforms and outlines priorities and investment needs and achieves our goals. so you see, afghanistan isn't just hoping for a better future. we have a solid roadmap to get there. we have all the essential building blocks for success, the vast human capital in our enormous youth population, a wealth of natural resources and an ideal geographic location, and enduring desire
for peace, a brave and increasingly sufficient military, leaders with a vision for the future and knowledge to educated . the afghanistan we are working to create will be an altar of stability and peace in the region. a model of what is possible with full, reasonable economic cooperation. able war against terrorism. and a key ally to the united states without whom none of this would have been possible, thank you. [applause] >> great, we have time for some questions to the ambassador,thank you ambassador for these remarks . just please raise your hand and identify yourself and we will take your questions, i appreciate it but yes, the gentleman here in frontof the microphone ? >> thank you very much. i'm willing read with the
national, could you bring us up-to-date on plans for election to the peshmerga and election law? >> the election commission that had been long overdue to replace this is part of the electoral reforms has now been established so the seven members of the election commissions have been appointed and the independent electoral complaints commission has also, the commissioners have also been appointed and they are working out the details. the plan for the elections, hopefully the parliamentary election as opposed to what you are referring to for some time next year. >> the gentleman here in the front. >> thank you mister ambassador. the afghan american chamber of commerce, we have evidence to date that borrow the business matchmaking.
my question is around investments, and in afghanistan the biggest question for ed investors is the poor performance of the public section and the need to go back tophone some form of regulated private security . >> i am speaking at your event tomorrow and i promise to keep it more on the side of security but i felt this audience was more on security base and the question is quite appropriate as we move toward making afghanistan a better place for business, security for our businesses is a top priority and this is reflected in the current investments that we have received, the $1.1 billion of investment that i mentioned and for afghanistan in one year is a huge achievement and some of this is not just afghan investors.
the hydropower plant phase of that project has been given to a turkish firm and their security coming into afghanistan and then feeling it's a huge and/or cement to the progress we've been able to make in the past two years. >> in the front? my name is arnold zeitlin, i was associated press correspondent in afghanistan in the golden years of the early 70s . how do you respond to critics and the presence of foreign forces in afghanistan that are in fact an obstacle to a resolution of the conflict there? >> we haven't seen any indication to that criticism. we've noted in the past two
years from wherever the international troops through the security situation did improve, the number of attacks increased. last year we had more civilian casualties than any other time and who are they killing? the afghans. the international security force is not leading the combat anymore, the role is strictly afghans now. but the number of attacks have not reduced so that argument that the international security forces are perhaps the reason is a flawed argument. >>. [inaudible] >> as we have seen president trump during his campaign, he seems to engage in. [inaudible] how do you
continue for more, why is afghanistan important? >> and how can you continue supporting afghanistan? >> we are providing like the chair reflects, we have shared interests and what i referred to earlier was our mutual commitment to our future, not just afghanistan but the region and the world so we, for everything we've heard from president trump's administration's policy toward afghanistan would be continued progress in building upon what has already been achieved so far. >> that's relates to this part of the program this morning, before we move to our next panel, could you join me in giving around of applause to hamdullah mohib.
>> good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation. i'm here to address the situation in afghanistan, i'm peter brooks. our territories are covered this hour on the topic so let me quickly give you some abbreviated information. on our panelists whose resumes are very impressive, it will take a lot of time to get through all of them. i will take as much time for comments and questions. joining us this morning our ambassador james cunningham, with the task force in 2015 and a senior fellow at the south asian center and chair of afghanistan. he served as ambassador of afghanistan from 2012 group 2014 is and his deputy ambassador through 2012. as you israel, he offered
eight through 2011 and did diplomatic postings around the world including at the un . then we hear from scott smith, scott will go next. he's currently served at the senior mediation advisor in the us department of political affairs. prior to this scott served as director of us it. afghanistan and central asia programs, he's the director. in 2012, scott spent 13 years at the united nations, primarily focused on afghanistan and democratization issues. finally, from the heritage foundation , which he will join heritage in 2012 and he is the director of the douglas and sarah allison center for politics, prior to joining heritage he joined at the united kingdoms, served as the special advisor, took british defense secretary and during his time he worked on afghan related issues and
regularly visited the country to work in the uk followed his service as commission officer in the u.s. army and in 2005, he deployed to afghanistan and was awarded the bronze star. ambassador>> thank you very much . i'm pleased to join you today. i wanted to just focus on i think three days that i hope that the next administration will address when it sets about looking at not just afghanistan about the whole range of security challenges that the united states and our partners face and the zone of crisis extends all the way through north africa. senator demint mentioned some of this in his remarks but i think the first thing that i hope the next administration will do is put afghanistan
not in the context of a problem to be solved but to put it in the context of the broader struggle that we face dealing with conflict in islamic extremism throughout what i would callthe greater middle east . afghanistan is an isolated phenomenon, it is pacific, it has its own additions, sets of challenges. it is an expression of this broader conflict that we need to find a way to deal with as a society and when i say we, i don't just mean the united states but we and our international partners. another thing that americans don't really appreciate, that in afghanistan we have perhaps the broadest coalition of countries and international organizations that are assembled and trying to bring about peace and stability in that part of the world, that's the kind of
coalition we need more broadly through this range of crisis. so including afghanistan in that context, and explaining that to the american people, frankly is something that i hope that president trump and his colleagues will do when the time comes. you can't come up with it in isolation. we see it in the regional dynamics that exist around afghanistan and pakistan, the roles of iran and other neighbors and russia, china, india. there is a dynamic there that can be improved but that also needs to be appreciated and explain. the second thing is as senator demint mentioned, i hope very quickly that president-elect trump will send a clear message of the continued commitment to his
administration to afghanistan and to the struggle that we have been engaged in with our afghan partners over the last 15 years or so.this message of a consistency of us engagement and commitment i think is essential not just for the afghan people but for all parties in the region including our allies but also our adversaries. one of the flaws i'm afraid of the way the obama administration has handled afghanistan is that there has not been that clarity of messaging and commitment and confusion about or doubt about what the united states is about in the region gives concern to our friends and partners and is encouraging to our adversaries and we need to end that if we are going to prevail in shaping a successful process in
afghanistan and providing, setting the field for a political process that eventually will be a political process that leads to a negotiated end to the conflict which i know afghans deeply desire as we do but to do that, there has to be a reshaping of the calculations of the tower than, diet and of those countries in the region about the american role and commitment as well as we have paid willing afghan partner that in kabul which we do. we need to take advantage of that. the third thing i think is high on the agenda is taking a step back and looking at the role of pakistan in the region and our engagement in pakistan. some of you are aware that
the number of former senior officials who been engaged in afghanistan military and civilian in september published a paper which was intended as advice to the next american president, you can find it if you didn't see it on the website so the atlantic council and brookings and brand. the only thing that we could not agree on in that paper was what to do about pakistan. but we all agreed that what we have been doing with pakistan isn't producingthe desired result . this is an opportunity now with the new administration coming in office and this was one of the key recommendations of the paper was for a new administration to step back and take a fresh look at the tax stance rule,
what we and our international partners are very important, not just the united states, what we and our international partners can do to reshape thinking and pakistan about its interest in the region and in afghanistan and provide incentives that would encourage pakistan to take actions that we have been hoping for years that it would take to curtail the activities of the taliban and and afghanis within pakistan. it's a truism i'm afraid that we recently observed by general keane in that testimony that he gave to the senate that the prospects for ending the conflict when one of the adversaries enjoys safe haven in an adjoining country are dismal to nonexistent. that's a phenomenon we have been grappling with for quite some time.
in order to truly get to a political process and an agreement that ends the conflict, pakistan must be an acted as a partner in addressing that and we need to find new ways if we can to take the kind of steps that we would like to seethem take . >> scott? >> thanks. there's maybe something in the water in new york, maybe a little bit pessimistic so before i get into the meat of my message i want to say that as someone who's been working on the afghan issue in 1993, i totally endorse what has been said before about the need for a longer-term commitment, about the dangers of a withdrawal , about the fact that it's a project, about the fact that we have made investments that need to be in some sense redeemed to
a better degree than they have so far. but it struck me over the summer, watching what happened at brussels and at warsaw with the recommitment to the civilian budget for the next four years and to the military forces for the next four years which was to me, a great relief in part because of what ambassador cunningham as sad about uncertain messaging. i still couldn't help but think as a bit of a cynical realist metaphor on what had just happened, it seemed to me that we renewed a somewhat extensive lease on a fixer upper in a dangerous neighborhood without really having the tools to fix it up. and this is as our president-elect would understand maybe not the best real investment so far so what would we be able to improve the terms of this
deal? let me go through a few points that i think are of concern. some we can address, some that are outside of our abilities but nonetheless we need to be aware of and keep an eye on. as the general trend that i fear is one of the fragmentation on a number of levels including the political that could get out of control if the source of this fragmentation is not addressed. let me first mention the fragmentation of the 30 itself. when i was director of the usa, i get a report on isis in afghanistan, it's just been released but the very good name of the rise and install of isis.
the general conclusion is isis is there in afghanistan. it may not have official connections with isis and the middle east but it is nonetheless a factor and it's proven, mostly centered in the heart and is, is proven capable of carrying out operations in kabul and those operations are aimed deliberately at promoting rivalry which has never really been a big problem in afghanistan so far but that's the new found service. then there's the question of the taliban themselves and this is difficult to read. how fragmented are they, how cohesive are they? they've been thrown out to leadership crisis. there was a recent article a few days ago basically saying that the movement is now completely consolidated behind the new leader and when i read articles like that, i tend to debate, maybe it's not. they released a biography of two of the new leaders and that was released biographies of their new leaders in a
moment of security so there are other times that commanders are not getting tribute the way they used to, they are holding onto some of their own resources is another issue to watch but there's a possibility of fragmentation on the ground of the caliban and we've had this debate, is this a good thing or a bad thing? a lot of people, one argument is let them fragment. let's make a deal with the moderates and it will be easier to defeat the more extreme. the other line of thought is if we have to make a deal with the taliban, wouldn't it be better that the guys that we make a deal with can compel the guys further down on the deal and it sort of depends on how you interpret the conflict and how much weight you give to the need for a critical solution with the town and leadership as this fragmentation would be a good or more a negative thing. now, afghan national security
forces also are fragile, i think there were two good reports that came out this year, one by the afghan leaders on the state of the afghan security forces, after our withdrawal and the other one also by the us biology, it gives a very good history as well as the formation of the forces. it's true they held the line, it's true they held these attacks against cities, it's true that unfortunately as well the number of casualties have been very high but there's serious weaknesses within the afghan national security forces including high attrition rates, can corruption and equipment and animation stolen through the town andbuy some units . and blew them around.
and one of the result is again, a spike despite holding the line, the taliban is going through a report, they were able to shut off the north-south road for 10 days in a way they've never been able to do before and again, they sort of made attacks on urban areas. i think frankly the caliban, i put myself in the shoes of the town man, i think they would have tried to capture at least two provincial capitals in the way they helped kunduz in 2015 and the fact they failed to do that is a good sign for the nationalsecurity forces but there are some long-term problems . that gives cause for concern. and that's something that we can address and i'll get to that in a little while. now, fragmentation, the division at the political
level. we know the national unity government has been and the ambassador just admitted as well, has verypublic spats , has disappointing on the reforms we hope to see, on the creation of the cabinet and we know that there are continued sources of division such as right now the whole situation over the first vice president who is obviously leading his own armies in the north but is now involved in also attacks against the rival politicians. there have been other incidents that show that the possibility of the use of political violence within the coalition that we support is
always sort of there, simmering even if it hasn't exploded. there's an irony of the national unity government which is when we created this power-sharing view, what we also created which was meant to encompass all the critical tenants of the country, we also saw for the first time a independent opposition that began to emerge to that government and i think that opposition has hindered the operation of the current government is trying to undermine it but fundamentally even they realize there's no alternative to the arrangement we have so far but a nuisance and some of these reports on the state of the national army has shown that these political divisions at that top level do have an effect on how the security forces offer, they year-long search for a defense minister who is debilitating the ard report says that it's basically meant that the mod has left the initiative on the conflict to the insurgents. some officers report concerns that military decisions are being made with an eye to influencing the regional conflict within the
government rather than with an eye to achieving a national security and to some extent, the infighting within the unity government has undermined the legitimacy of the government among afghan people and therefore in some cases maybe makes them more likely to support or at least put up with the insurgency. finally, an area of fragmentation . the support the international community for the us-led effort in afghanistan from the position where i was at the un i was often surprised at how sanguine russia seemed to be about the present us troops and either a broad arrest backyard. but even as we begin to fracture and you have now this emergence in the last couple of weeks what seems to be a pakistan india block against india afghanistan block against afghanistan and russia, kudos to how that
will develop but if there is fragmentation at the level of the international coalition and diplomatic community supports, they all have a common objective of building afghanistan, i think that also needs to be addressed and that unfortunately falls in the middle of this very uncertainty, this new diplomacy signaled by the incoming administration and various relations with russia's relationship with china and others. on the question of pakistan, i agree with what ambassador cunningham said. we don't know what to do but nothing we've done has worked so far and that still remains one of the crucial pieces of this puzzle. in terms of what to do about it, i'm mostly going to, i'll refer to another report that is involved with as well as a few other people in this room which is the asia foundation report on afghanistan going forward which has a number of recommendations. i reread them yesterday in
the context of this more recent analysis and i think most of them are valid and really encompass sort of the ensemble of what it needs to be doing. the question of long-term commitment, at the very least we need to stop thinking in this one year cycle. we know we have a cycle that goes until 220, we know that we have elections coming up in 2019 and we really need to at the very least start with the first program that looks at those areas and what happens next year. let me put a plug in also for another idea that i said earlier that the middle east institute panel which was, what do we do about these elections? we've heard about this, i think that the idea of trying
to have parliamentary elections next year or at the worst in 2018 is sort of chasing a mirage. i think we know were going to have a president in 2018, let's schedule the elections for then. it's not going to get any less legitimate and let's use these three years to do as much reform as we can, instead of chasing after six months of reform, not being able to publish it and resetting the clock, we've just been on a fools errand. i would reset the clock for 2019 and begin working on a reform program between now and then. finally, the note on the process. i think the new administration as most administrations in the group or somebody, leads a study on what we need to do in afghanistan and i really
think that if this is done and it should be done, we could probably also look at some of the fundamental premises that guide our thinking on this so far. in particular i think we need to look at the real impact of afghanistan particularly on our national security . and we need to have a realistic assessment of how likely we are to reach our maximum objectives as well as a reassessment of our minimal objectives and want to talk about in minimal objectives, i think the point raised by senator demint on the importance also of not appearing to be defeated.i think it's a prestige element in this thing that needs to be taken into account when we
consider what our minimal addresses are and finally, i think in sober analysis of what leverage we have over our afghan partners, over regional actors, and over supposed allies like pakistan as part of looking at that question so i would really do an in-depth starting from the bottom examination of what we need to achieve, what we have to achieve it and how do we make sure that our fundamental interests of security in a way that it doesn't repudiate sacrifices that we and the many afghans who supported us either on the military view or civilian view have made since 2010 when we began. >> good morning everyone. considering how colorful the election campaign was over the past 18 months or so in the us, i don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing that afghanistan wasn't raised barely at all. because who knows what would have been said? it almost seems like the american public and that large has either forgotten or doesn't really care or doesn't really know about
what is really going on still in afghanistan today. just think in an 18-year-old private who is now fighting in afghanistan was three years old when 9/11 happened and this war has gone on for so long that i think the american public has generally lost the attention span for it so that's why i think it's important that upfront and incoming trump administration is very clear on what, excuse me, i'm slightly losing my voice. the trump administration is clear on what us goals and objectives are in as scott was saying have some realistic goals that are achievable. for the country. i want to break up my remarks inseveral sections . as kind of an over of what you've already heard but also to tee up the next panel. i'm going to discuss a little bit about how i see the security situation in our country and discuss the troop
configuration, the force posture of both the us and nato and afghan forces from the challenges facing afghan forces and i'm going to discuss a bit about the political process and the way i had read in the north we've seen an increase in fighting andnormally the focus from the south , i think we are seeing an increase in foreign fighters especially coming from the tribal area, and pakistan that have been pushed over and heading to the north and their causing problems for regional security actors both for the afghans and also for the neighboring countries. as sky alluded to, general dotson hasbasically gone rogue . up in the north, up in respect, he's of the opinion that the posturing president and the touchy chief executive hasn't really been protecting the interest of those ethnic groups at the expense of other ethnic groups and that's one of the reasons motivating general dotson.
you see russia now getting involved. very clear statements by some out of russia that they are in talks with the taliban to try to preserve stability of the region. they are using what's happening in northern afghanistan as an excuse to get more involved in some of the central asian republics, that there's been a notable visit through the course of 2016 by senior russian officials including oscar body where they've made gestures of goodwill to help the turkmens secure their border and usually when the russians talk about helping to secure a border, it ends up being a bit more than a border force so they are meddling in the region as well which is an added dimension and in the south, we have the continued dominated taliban insurgency and the traditional heartland area of kabul, kandahar, the pkk region and this hasn't
been necessarily surprised many, but nevertheless it has to be confronted. general nicholson recently said that his assessment that the afghans, excuse me, that the taliban control at least 10 percent of the population of afghanistan and about another 20 percent is contested. so that leaves around 70 percent, more than 70 percent depending on the contested bit under control of the afghan government. the rise of isis in the chorus on region of afghanistan, i agree. i like the title. i haven't read the report but the rise and the stall, i think the ideology of the techniques and procedures of isis don't set well with
costumes in general and they are probably viewed with suspicion or contempt by the local population. if for anything else, just being foreigners or opportunists at the expense of the taliban so while they are an actor, you hear some of these do stories about they are just going to take over and i just think i don't see that happening. in terms of what we are doing with what nato and the us are doing in terms of military forces, i think it's important to look at the numbers. there are about 15,000 international troops in afghanistan, about 13,000 are under the nato resolution and about 2000 or so, these are general numbers, another 2000 or so our us forces involved in a kinetic operation, separate from nato. training, supporting, assisting missions. actively involved in day-to-day combat operations. of the 13 ortho so thousand groups under the nato mission, roughly 6300 are
from a european partner and international partners and their 39 countries involved in this operation and as general mathis once said, they usually are decided with the most friends that wins the war, that's what history teaches us. we should echo what the previous two speakers said about the importance of having those broad international coalition. i would like to highlight some important points, for example georgia, the republic of georgia contributes 900 troops which makes it the largest per capita contributor in the alliance right now. a pleasant surprise is italy which contributes more than 1000 troops to the operation and i would say a slight disappointment is spain with a troops. considering it's europe's largest economy and a member of nato, this contribution is behind non-nato and four important countries like
mongolia, bosnia, armenia and montenegro. and of course the sacrifices have been great for the international coalition as senator demint and more than 3 and a half thousand, 3528 people to be precise, soldiers, airmen and marines have been killed in afghanistan since 2001. in terms of the afghan national defense and security forces which is the latest acronym or the a.m. sbs, there has been this debate raging for a couple years now about the size and funding of this force. right now i think the plan is to maintain it at 352,000.i think this is the right thing and it needs to stay at this level at least well into the future. i know that there's a lot of controversy over the corruption, the issues with
small arms being traded off and sold and attrition rates. but i have perhaps a very low standard for what i'm hoping for from the a and psf. to paraphrase lawrence of arabia in 1918 when he was leading the arab revolt against the ottoman empire, it's better they do it tolerably and we do it perfectly. it is their nation, their fight and we are there to help them. we are not there to win it for them. that's sort of my benchmark when i look at the capabilities. yes, it's not a perfect army but it could be a hell of a lot worse and there are ways we could should improve it and we should work on those. they have taken huge casualties as senator demint mentioned in his opening remarks and it is in our interests, nato's interests, afghanistan's interests, the
region's interests that this force is available to take the fight to the insurgency and this is where the funding gets so important and it's also where it gets controversial. afghanistan is unable to pay solely for the funding for this security force. some estimates say by 2024, he will be able to start paying for its own security forces but they do need help from the international community and they need the considerable help from the united states and when you look at it in the big picture, what the us needs to provide in order to keep the afghan security forces into the fight is actually a bargain to the us taxpayer. the administration requested $3.5 billion for the afghan forces for fiscal year 2017. this is what the us spent at the height of the war in 2012 , every 10 days in afghanistan. so 3.5 billion might seem
like a lot on the face of it and it is, don't get it wrong but in the overall picture, in terms of the investment the us has made to the country and what it would take if the us was to continue keeping 100,000 troops in the country doing the jobs the afghans should be doing, this is a bargain. now in terms of the way, you can no more kill your way out of an insurgency then you can drink your self out of alcoholism and the goal of any counterinsurgency campaign is to allow those who have legitimate political grievances away to air and address those grievances through something other than the use of force. and that's why the political settlement, the political process is so important in afghanistan. the surge worked in iraq the cause is fundamentally more than just an increase of troops. it was part of a bigger solution designed to go on the ground and built around a revitalized political process that engaged with and
approached the sunni minority population . so to secure similar results in afghanistan, we need to focus on this political tract which is a no-brainer but nevertheless it's worth mentioning again because i think many in the us have this idea that talking to the taliban which is a politically charged phrase in the us, means many different things to many different people but we need to start explaining to people that we are fighting an insurgency, this is how insurgencies end. this is a sign of defeat, this is part of the path towards success so to make clear what the success looks like, i think success in afghanistan will be achieved when we have a stable enough afghanistan able to manage its own internal and external security to agree degree that stopped interference from outside partners and stop the country from becoming a state see heaven from which
international terrorism can be planned or launched. as it was before 9/11. ancillary, patience is required. success in afghanistan will be measured in years and decades, not 24hour news cycles and not 140 character tweets . and we have to realize that these successes are going to be hard to measure in this type of warfare. winston churchill while a young officer fighting peshtun's in the 19th century explained the difficulty of winning the type of work he faced and the type of war we face now in afghanistan and i quote, there are no general actions on a great scale. no brilliant successes, no surrenders, no chances for theater. it is just a rough, hard job must be carried through. the war is one of small incidents. victory must be looked for in the results. if what happened in iraq in 2011 after we pulled out is
any lessons for us, we should realize now is not the time to turnour backs on afghanistan . let's move to questions. here we go. >> if you raise your hand i will call on you. state your name and your association to our panelists and we will round up some questions and answers. ... >> thank you. on the peace process for war in afghanistan and the actor which has been difficult, as we know that there are now changes in pakistan's
military establishment and the new head of intelligence services, withthat , i would say in the pieces of that whole thing on the ground, the head was the student of the war college in the us , that in afghanistan in 2000 was not effective that a solution could lead from afghanistan which it seems that now he's staying with his support for our chief of victory and one of the proposals or solutions is that to decentralize afghanistan and include that taliban as sort of a compromise and give them those provinces in which they have the most influence so if this is the push from let's
say pakistan to the peace process to have this, tom as inclusion, they call it wonderingtaliban , the recipe of the us position if the us wants to get afghanistan for example and how that will play into the overall scenery of the years in the candidacy and in afghanistan and all these human rights issues. that's one thing, what is the other option? fighting them back in whatever their places are? and with that there would be more troops and would that be our decision and would be we be able to do that? >> i didn't mention
reconsideration in my remarks but i have thoughts on it. one of the sort of ironic things i always thought about the situation is between 2011 and 2014, the information really came in that there were three people who always wanted to change things, us troops in afghanistan and there was president obama, president karzai but they couldn't make it happen. one of the security officers that i had, it seems to me that when we think about the sort of deal that you're describing, we are imputing a lot of things of what we think the taliban would want and it might not be what the taliban want and so the discussions i've had with people who are intermediaries suggests that it's not
necessarily about dividing up provinces, it's about returning to peace but in a way which is more familiar or congenial to the way that they see it, i'm a lawyer so i can't be too precise. so this reconciliation path, i think the first thing is to find out what they really want and there is an infrastructure to do that and i think there are discussions going on but i certainly don't have access to them. i do think we need to think more widely about what accommodation looks like and in some ways, this is more acceptable and a sort of geographical area. >> i agree with that and i would add that this process has to be an organic process.
the us and international community can encourage but often the question is framed inside this notion that the us can be the one to kickstart this. that's something that's the case and certainly at a local level. in terms of what role the taliban could play in the future, that's up to the afghans to determine but in a way that sort of leads to the electoral process and the concerns that people have addressed already today, i think it's worth considering the need to question some of the promises that afghan use, for example for the parliamentary elections. both the best electoral system we can come up with for a country where many people do vote along ethnic lines and multiple member constituencies. you get skewed results and
you get certain groups, usually unrepresented even though they perhaps are the majority ethnic group in that constituency so i think these issues deviate, they need to be addressed but these are issues that have been around for years and no one is willing to tackle them head on. were going to be exhausting other options pretty soon so we're going to have to start thinking. >> i think the, we get into trouble when we start as americans start thinking about the outcome and how we can space manage toward history. i would caution in pakistan against doing the same thing because there are many different options in the
agreement, if it's going to hold, it has to be a master agreement, that's one of the many lessons of history that you can't impose or stage-managed from the outside and i think we need to be respectful of our limits and how far we can reach inside an afghan process to make this happen but what we can do and what we should be doing is figuring out how to already use our military effort and our political effort of diplomacy to shape the process which makes it more likely and then possible for afghans to sit down and have a serious discussion and negotiation about how to bring the conflict to an end. is not the same thing as walking the taliban into a room and having them sit at a table and talk about what they want. it's getting them to make the calculation and prediction about the future of afghan standing, what they and the
afghan people can do to bring the conflict to an end and i would remind you that we should all keep in mind that analysis and polling have consistently shown and reaffirmed by the asia foundation the afghan situation reports, the taliban have very little support among afghanistan. it's not realistic to think they could just be given a province. i don't think that's the way this is going to or should evil. what needs to happen is a serious discussion about how the taliban, those who wish to end the conflict can be integrated into the afghan political process in ways that can stabilize and that's fundamentally an afghan tactic. >> one final point, if
general edelson's assessment is correct or at least in the ballpark thatthe afghan security forces control about 70 percent of the population , another 20 percent is contested in the final 10 percent control by the taliban, i would say we probably reach the peak that we are going to achieve without some sort of parallel realistic political process. and you know, until this is matt, this realistic political processes met or after we have a political process, i think there will be an insurgency of some form in afghanistan for the foreseeable future, probably for my lifetime and this isn't necessarily a sign of defeat. india, arguably the world's largest democracy fight at their borders as we speak right now. so i think it's just a reality of the challenges the region faces and i think that's how we should look at it. >> to that point, we are outside of afghanistan is the taliban support?
that's an important issue, their financial support. >> they have financial or other support, are there other countries supporting the taliban? there are all sorts of rumors and allegations out there. are they receiving support from the outside? >> they have active fundraising, have had for years operations in the gulf and in other parts of the world, principally in the gulf and i can't comment on that significant story in the washington post several days ago about a saudi individual contributing financing, their financing comes from a combination of collecting taxes, extortion, external fundraising, criminal activities, smuggling and of course the drug trade and all
that combines into a pretty sophisticated financial effort. >> there are rumors that russia at least in the top factions in north are getting some supplies and guidance. >> there's another recent article stating that funding from individuals in the goal that was drying up a little bit because of the fact that last year i mentioned earlier that mostly the taliban are not killing foreign soldiers but other actors and that's becoming a little bit more basic . >> right here. >> thank you. doug from the afghan american chamber of commerce. this panel had to present a two or three options for a new policy to pakistan to the new administration, the policy options. what would the three options be that might change the
situation or offer some avenues for improvement? >> that's the $64,000 question. i've been through several iterations of this discussion with people around town over the last year or so. there isn't any silver bullet that's going to change the dynamic that's now been in existence for quite some time. in my view, there are things that can be done differently that have been done in the past, i don't want to get into all those here there has to be also a change in the assessment of the united states and its partners that the situation that we have been, whatever the word is, tolerating, permitting to exist isn't sustainable if we
want to bring the conflict to a close and i think the time has long passed when we need to marshal our efforts collectively to do what we can to create the ground and blame bring the conflict to a close. it might be sustainable that this insurrection and the conflict could go on for many years to calm, that may prove to be the case but it's a terrible cost to afghanistan and the afghanpeople and the region and thankfully not so much directly for us . >>
that is where we need to do a better job. >> does anyone else want, and it. >> and i was first studying in our national relations out of the cold war, there were three options. option one is nuclear war, option two is do not think and option three is what cunningham says. >> i am wondering about law in
afghanistan, how it applies nationally and if there is any conflict between the federal government and the local governments due to the extent of sharia? you could spend a whole day answering that. the simple answer is, i think that that law is enshrined in the afghan constitution, but it does not overshadow what you might call the more traditional body of legal jurisdiction which is on the books in afghanistan. there are several kinds of legal recourse. there's justice that's done at the local level and it's pretty widespread which were influenced
by sharia law. their family disputes which are pretty much adjudicated acute according to sharia law but there are also different interpretations so that's a further complication. another thing that this showed is that the vast majority of afghans realize they have access to courts of one sort or another and have the right to have a lawyer. that's a rather significant change. they are finding a way to meld their culture and history as they have done in the past. that is one of the things that really set the taliban and apart and why most afghans don't support the taliban or the return to the taliban because
the return to sharia law is repressive and overwhelming and that's not the thing that most afghans want. >> did anyone mention al qaeda? i heard the taliban and isis, but i didn't hear anyone mention al qaeda. >> there was some mention that one of the basic goals should be for the safe haven for groups like al qaeda. i think in terms of their activity in afghanistan, there's a minute fraction of what it once was. they realize it doesn't have the safe haven that it once enjoyed and there are plenty, there's no shortage of places around the world where they can do what it does and we have seen that with
the rising dominance of a q i'm, a qip and their affiliates. in my opinion, at least when i was working on after afghan policy, the senior level for the british in 2010, 2011, thousand ten, 2011, there is not day-to-day concern about the role of al qaeda in a fight in afghanistan. >> i will ask all of you to give me a one minute elevator speech to president-elect trump's national security adviser before we close, but i want to take one more question. you have a minute. >> you can get a minute to say what you would tell general flynn about afghanistan and why we should say committed and what are the consequences. if you have a minute, it's it's like a congressional elevator. let me go to the side over here, just because i haven't had an opportunity to do that. i'm sorry.
>> thank you. matt sullivan, i'm a former un staff member. my question is just on the economy and maybe this administration coming in, given given that this is a totally different president, do you think there is opportunity for partnerships with some of the regional players including russia and china with some of the bigger infrastructure projects that could maybe boost the economy to get afghans working. >> does anyone want to take that one? >> i think that would be better for the paint next panel. >> actually, if you're gonna stick around, i think the next panel will go into that. >> before going to the one minute speech is ,-comma what about iran. that's another thing, that's a concern on a national security level for a lot of reasons. where's the iranian involvement obviously, as a border state. >> the iranians are involved, they have a historical relationship with afghans, they've had difficulties with
the taliban and there also hedging their but that they maintain connections and probably some level of assistance to the taliban so they have their hands in the game. afghans are suspicious of their neighbors, particularly of pakistan and iran and their engagement in their society but the iranians, they maintain a lot of soft power influence in iran, both religious and cultural and are very well represented, i understand they are protecting their interests around the country, but they also have a number of shared interests with the united states and the coalition that we have tried to draw them into recognition and discussion of in terms of what can be done to
promote stability in afghanistan which may also desire. the afghans, for their port their part need a run as a friendly neighbor so they have a dynamic relationship with tehran. >> i would add that they're very active in the west of the country, for sure, some consider that it should rightly be rainy and as far as many as concerned and they've laid siege to the city and occupied the city a number of times throughout the past few centuries. it's well documented that the iranians have provided the taliban and other insurgent groups with weapons and especially when it suits their interests to try to kill american and other coalition soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, but i think the overarching of all of this is the religious connection to the
shia sorry people, and i don't think the iranians have forgotten what they did, anything at the end of the day, push comes to shove and this will be an important factor in their calculus in terms of how they deal with afghanistan. >> what's your elevator speech? >> when i was thinking ,-comma what to say, i was trying to think in terms of having watched a few episodes of the apprentice what if you are in front of the president-elect. i'm not sure, i'm being entirely frank, i'm not sure that a lot of the arguments that we have been convincing ourselves with over the past five or ten years would be particularly effective. i think we would all be fired within the first week. especially in terms of what we said we been trying to achieve in what we actually have achieved, as much as we provide
reasons that are understandable and explain the complexity and so forth. i think you have two options. one is the one that luke alluded to which is we continue renting this fixer-upper and it will cost $3.5 billion a year or maybe six on the civilian side and were just way to keep going and try to maintain and get it under control and deal with the consequences including the risks that i mentioned because of the existence of it including the risk of emergent groups, destabilizing, but that's the best we can do. or, again, i'm supposed to have more ideas than i mentioned, but certainly a deeper look at what are minimal objectives are what were willing to sacrifice. there will have to be a little
bit of a deconstruction of our original ambition for the country. >> absolutely. i would be very clear as i'm heading up the elevator that it's time to reassess what our true goals are and what our national security interest because we have sacrificed a lot in the past 15 years. i would say the number one goal should be that afghanistan no longer becomes the safe haven for international terrorism to plan and launch and coordinate international level attacks and that the goal is not to be measured by how many schools or how many hospitals or how many roads are paved, while this is part of the counterinsurgency campaign and this is part of our involvement there, this is not the reason for our involvement in the goal is not to create a jeffersonian democracy in the country, in the short term at least. focus on realistic goals that
can keep america safe and make america great again. >> i will continue the real estate metaphor. we have made a tremendous amount a tremendous investment in blood in money in this particular fixer-upper, as got scott put it, but the fixer-upper is being fixed and it's going to take some time to do it, but you have the opportunity to protect the investment that's been made and advance it and we have generated a significant return on that investment. it hasn't been the return that we had hoped, it hasn't been 20%, but it's been 10% and that's not bad and it can get better if we get smarter at it, and by the way, the last thing you should want to have is this particular thing crumble during
>> the idea that we couldn't sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business, that forced us to look for other markets. >> wednesday night, former vp dick cheney dick cheney and former defense secretary leon pannetta on the defense department under doll trump. >> i think the challenges are very great and i think we have unfortunately, over the course of the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet those threats. >> we are living in that threat where there are a lot of flashpoints, and a new administration is going to have to look at that kind of world. obviously they have to define policy that we need in order to deal with that. then, develop the defense policy to confront that kind of war. >> thursday at eight pm eastern, look at the career of vice president-elect mike pence. >> and miss the shifting sands
of contemporary culture and law, we have stood without a policy for the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage and the freedom of religion. >> on friday night beginning at eight, farewell speeches and tributes to several outgoing senators including harry reid, barbara boxer, kelly ayotte and dan coats. this week in prime time, on c-span. >> this week on c-span2, it's a tv in prime time. each night, tonight we have biographies and autobiography. we will hear from authors a book on al capone and eleanor roosevelt and a former secretary who worked under several administrations. autobiographies by diane guerrero and darrell asa. this week is authors week on "washington journal" featuring live one hour segments with a new author each day beginning at 8:30 a.m. eastern.
she will talk about her book, the unspoken truth about racial divide. thursday, author james whitfield with twilight worriers, the soldiers, spies and special agents were revolutionary revolutionizing the american way and the politics of resentment. the rise of scott walker. on saturday, two authors will join us with a nation of nations, the great american immigration story and robert jones with his book the end of white christian america. and finally on sunday, the author with shall we wake the president, to centuries of disastrous leadership from the global office. the assistant secretary of commerce for communication's and information spoke at the hudson institute recently about fifth generation mobile networks, also
called 5g. that would allow faster broadband to more people than the current 4g. this is about one hour 40 minutes. >> good afternoon my name is harold and i'm very pleased to welcome you here to the hudson institute and the center for the economics of the internet. i'm very pleased today to be discussing 5g wireless, and the future of that in the federal government's role. we are very honored to have speaking with us today the honorable lawrence strictly. i call him larry. larry has, i think think the longest title of anyone in the federal government. he is the assistant secretary for communications and information department of commerce and administrator national communication administration.
if anyone can say that in one breath, they are doing very well i hope you read larry's bio, it's on the back of the summary. i am going to give you my personal bio of larry. i first met larry at the hudson institute in indianapolis, indiana about 20 years ago. maybe 21 to 22. larry had a very important position, something like deputy general counsel of every major company and he gave a lot of thoughtful comments at hudson that day. he looked like he was about 20 and a couple years later we met again when he became the common carrier at the fcc. we had one of the highlights of
every week was being with larry and we talked about what was going on. i certainly learned a lot. i always came out of the meeting feeling as if i have learned a lot which i had. he has gone on to bigger and better things and for the past eight years, i don't know that there are many folks in government who have had your tenure and just a great string of successes. we are very honored to have you here with us today and we look forward to your comments. >> thank you. [applause] thank you harold for that very personal introduction. i had forgotten about that hudson event, but you're right, that was quite some time ago. i want to thank you for hosting the event today and think the hudson institute for allowing us
to use this nice new facility. harold, i would like to specially thank you for your work on the commerce spectrum management advisory and for your contribution on spectrum policy over the past several years. i think you are finishing up seven or eight years with them so you have been there about as long as i've been here. thank you for your participation and contributions to that effort. it has been a very important one for us as we try to figure out how to solve the ongoing spectrum challenges we face here in this country. so our focus today is going to be on spectrum policy, but i thought we ought to explore it in the larger context of technology policy. i think it's fair to say that the obama administration has been as engaged or more engaged on technology policy than any of its predecessors. this is not just because
president obama has a personal interest in technology, which of course he does, but rather it reflects the recognition that the competitiveness of our country depends on having sound technology policies that support investment in innovation. when the president was first elected in 2008, e-commerce made up nearly 4% of u.s. retail sales. today that number has increased 50% at least, up to 6%. in. in 2014, the united states exported roughly $400 billion in information and communities, communications technology enabled services. that accounted for more than half of u.s. services exports, and i think we see today that virtually all industry sectors from manufacturers to agriculture and financial services have benefited from the adoption of digital technologies applications and services, and i think today tech policy is now intrinsically linked to our country's overall economic
prosperity. at the department we have done a lot of work in the past four years undersecretary leadership on what we have called digital economy work and i think the one conclusion we are reaching as we approach the end of our term here is that the digital economy is the economy. there is really no difference any longer. we have spent the last eight years focused on many of the key building blocks that support the digital a lot economy. we developed to manage the recovery act broadband act which added over 117 miles of fiber and underserved areas of the country. we have convene multi- stakeholder processes to address cyber security and privacy challenges and work to ensure the free flow of data across borders. we have provided key support to the commerce department board of advisors which has been examining ways to advance economic growth and opportunity in the digital age.
just yesterday, this panel delivered its first set of recommendations identifying cute key actions the department can take to support the digital economy and encourage growth and increasing opportunity. today i will focus on an important driver of our digital infrastructure, wireless connectivity. we have seen phenomenal growth in the use of wireless gadgets in the last decade from smart phones and tablets to electronic fitness trackers, in 2011, only 27% of americans reported using a smart phone, and in just four years, this number has doubled while the number of americans who use multiple wireless devices has also increased dramatically. the statistics tell only part of the story of the past eight years. t tia reports that the amount of data traveling across the wireless networks has skyrocketed from approximately
191 billion megabytes in 2092 over 10 trillion megabytes in 2016. all of this is before we even look to see the beginning of 5g so continued growth and innovation in this wireless sector will hinge on large part on the successful introduction of 5g networks and our ability to deliver the spectrum needed to power this and other next-generation technologies. this administration recognized the spectrum challenge from the start. we understood it to be a complicated problem because we needed to meet the growing spectrum needs, not not just of the commercial sector, but also of government agencies. so to address this challenge, the president passed ncaa in 2010 to work with the fcc to make 500 mhz of additional federal and nonfederal spectrum available for wireless broadband within ten years. while also ensuring that federal agencies could meet their
spectrum driven missions. to meet the president's goal, we partnered with the fcc in the relevant federal agencies to develop a ten year plan to achieve or exceed the target. we established a fast-track process to examine the most promising on an expedited basis, and under that we identified 115 megahertz that could be made available for wireless broadband within five years. this included bands that came became part of the successful auction in the fcc proceeding to establish the citizens broadband radio service in the three.5 megahertz band, and as we sit here today, assuming a successful outcome of the fcc's current for the tv, we will have made more than 300 megahertz spectrum available with more in the pipeline. just to show that the challenge processed in the goalpost keep moving.
in 2015 congress passes drum pipeline act and added 130 megahertz to the president's original target. from the outside it was clear to us that in reproducing spectrum, the old method of clearing spectrum of federal users and making it available for the exclusive use of commercial providers was no longer sustainable. we had moved the easy systems and to continue the old system of system allocation was going to cost too much money and take too long. the industry and its customers, as well as our economy simply could not afford the cost and delay. moreover, over the years, the critical the critical missions performed by federal agencies required systems of greater and greater complexity and increased their needs for spectrum so the opportunities to find spectrum to which to relocate operations were dwindling rapidly. given this landscape, and considering improvements in technology, we quickly realized
we needed to focus on increasing spectrum sharing between federal and nonfederal users. while federal agencies have been sharing it for many years, the commercial sector was not as familiar or comfortable with this approach. while we knew it would take time to persuade them that it was the right approach, it really was and is the only feasible path forward. working with industry, they let this fundamental shift in how we approach spectrum management. our work to promote and advance spectrum sharing among all users is the key to unlocking the unlimited possibilities for future spectrum use including 5g we have assisted greatly in this effort by our inner agency policy plans during group, the commerce spectrum management advisory committee made up of industry experts, and the
pres.'s council of advisors on science and technology, so-called precast. in 2012, in a pivotal report, they concluded that spectrum sharing offered a vital path forward. building on his 2010 memorandum, president obama recognized that spectrum sharing was not only necessary to achieve his megahertz goal but the expansion and evolution was essential to spectrum management. we began to develop a greater development of collaboration as well as among federal agencies because to succeed we needed greater buy-in from federal agencies as well as more certainty around what they were willing to do. this is essential in our work on a wf three and identifying the federal bands that would be part
of the auction which i think folks remember generated more than $40 billion. government and industry representatives collaborated and working groups under the leadership of our plan to study and assess how commercial systems could share spectrum with a variety of government systems in the 1755 - 1780 mhz 1780 megahertz band. more than 15 different federal agencies offering more than ten different types of services shared this 25 megahertz segment for a range of activities including air combat training systems come up precision guided ammunition, and satellite operations. after much deliberation and study we were able to develop transition plans to effectively move most of the sections out of the band over a ten year time period. this would not have happened without two key elements, the government industry collaboration and the work on spectrum sharing, because during
the tenure transition, and even beyond, beyond, sharing will continue around key sites across the country. importantly, the aws three process also resulted in the relocation of certain military systems to the 2025 been used by broadcaster will now now share it with military systems. we learned a lot from the experience and we are experiencing those learnings to our current and future efforts. what became clear as a result to this work was that we needed an enduring process that can produce and evaluate a steady pipeline of spectrum to meet the increasing needs of both federal and commercial users. we also realize we needed a more permanent process to identify and prioritize this for repurpose an. we needed it to be more transparent by improving the availability and quality of data around federal and nonfederal
spectrum use. we developed the to provide the public with detailed reports describing the use in the to 25 mhz, the five the five gigahertz band. this tool offers stakeholders a way to evaluate whether to pursue and ultimately propose sharing solutions. we are now in the process of expanding the range of bands included which will be particularly useful as we consider new sharing opportunities in higher bands. meanwhile, last month, we released we released a report on the quantitative assessment of spectrum usage which examined five bands totaling 960 megahertz of spectrum to determine which ones might be good candidates for potential sharing. analysis indicates various types of sharing may be possible in some of these bands or portions of the bands. it gives us a roadmap for the more detailed studies that will be necessary before we will be
able to recommend the bands for repurposing. we also know that research and experimentation will be key to helping us determine whether to repurpose spectrum. we are expanding the capabilities of her institute for telecommunication sciences in boulder colorado to perform the technical work to expand sharing, including monitoring and measurement and improved modeling. the key aspects is the objectivity and neutrality in assessing new technology, working with both federal and commercial stakeholders to provide scientifically sound data. as we examine whether a band can be repurposed, we take into account a number number of considerations. we must first fully understand how federal agencies are using the band to meet their missions. we also need to consider the suitability of particular bands for nonfederal use including whether they are our synergies
with other current or pending allocations. we also must evaluate the international considerations such as relevant government affiliations regarding global allocation. in all cases, our objective remains the same. we want to employ a detailed, rigorous set of analyses that involve all affected stakeholders to generate sound fact-based spectrum policy decisions. in some cases we are able to reach a conclusion that spectrum can be repurposed, but in others the science and the reality may lead us to a different conclusion. for example, the framework developed by these areas for shared use of the three.five gigahertz band offers a particularly promising roadmap for future efforts. in this case we needed to overcome the challenge of introducing commercial broadband systems into a been used for military radar. we knew that the intermittent use offered an opportunity for commercial operations for the
challenge we face was figuring out how to avoid drying extremely large exclusion zones to protect that. we knew that doing so would limit the ability of commercial providers. engineers took an additional critical step by collaborating with the defense department on groundbreaking analysis and modeling techniques that resulted in significantly reduced geographic exclusion zones but the overall approach will go much further, incorporating the innovative use of databases and technologies that sends wireless devices in the band to enable an increasingly dynamic sharing environment. in addition a three-tiered licensing model creates a framework that maximizes the use of the band by incumbents in different classes of new users.
despite the complexity of the framework, government and industry stakeholders are making great strides as we work to put this valuable spectrum to use to increase the capacity of broadband wireless connections and ultimately to support 5g services. most recently our collaboration made available approximately 11 gigahertz in the millimeter wave range. it will have innovative new services that will feature the high-capacity and low latency characteristics that are the emerging hallmarks. they also open up new opportunities for spectrum sharing on licensed and unlicensed spectrum use and dual use technology to enable not only new commercial services, but also critical government requirements. we've also been examining whether we can meet industry's request for unlicensed access in the five gigahertz band for wi-fi and other uses.
for the five.three gigahertz, we had to evaluate whether unlicensed devices can operate without degrading the performance of critical federal radars. unfortunately, the methodical analysis we conducted in collaboration with federal agencies, the fcc in the industry led us to conclude that there is no feasible path forward today to share the span. those were been following our efforts are unlikely not surprised by the development as stakeholders on all sides have known for some time we had high hurdles to overcome. while this may be a setback in terms of this particular band, i think it shows that our process is rigorous and that it works. the fundamental that all stakeholders have trust and confidence that we will run a fair and objective process and, over the the long run, i'm confident this type of process will result in increased commercial access and spectrum.
at the same time we have been testing potential approaches for sharing the upper five gigahertz band, 5.85.9 between vehicle to vehicle communications and on authorized uses such as wi-fi. we are working with the fcc in the department of transportation and industry stakeholders on this important band. overall, we have worked to ensure that we are positioned to respond to the growing commercial demand and an evolving market and that this should guide future activity. rapid advances in technology including quickly developing 5g in particular and continuously evolving business models means a number of our previous assumptions about spectrum have become outdated. for example, the commercial mobile industry for many years called for more access to spectrum in the lower band below three ghz. the so-called beachfront spectrum was desirable because it allowed wireless carriers to extend the coverage of their
network by enabling wireless signals to travel long distances and penetrate building walls. as those devices become more capable, mobile mobile networks also need to evolve to support high-bandwidth, high-volume applications such as next-generation video delivery, virtual reality, and automation. the very wide blocks of spectrum required for these services simply aren't available in the lower bands so we opened up mid band spectrum in recent years and now recent improvements in technologies allow industry to make use of the higher frequencies in the millimeter wave range that only a few years ago were not widely considered suitable for mobile broadband. over the years there has been much discussion about creating incentives for agencies to make more spectrum available for commercial use. the most effective incentive for agencies is to provide them the necessary resources they need to research alternatives for their
existing uses of spectrum and then to give them the resources to upgrade to more efficient technologies. eight key tool in this regard is the spectrum relocation fund. we have worked with the white house and congress to expand the authorized uses to enable agencies to conduct research and related activities that promise to increase spectrum efficiency. the fund was first established in 2004 to reimburse federal agencies for the cost associated with purpose and i'm identified for auction. the congress made important and needed changes to the fund as part of the 2015 spectrum pipeline act to broaden the scope of expenses covered under the fund. these efforts are beginning to bear fruit as federal agencies are developing spectrum pipeline plans for submission to a technical panel panel made up of representatives from the fcc and the white house's office of management and budget for their
approval. prior to the end of this administration, anticipate the transmittal of plants to congress that utilize new authority for the first time giving federal agencies the opportunity and incentive to explore new bands while protecting mission-critical functions. as an example, the federal aviation administration, in partnership with the defense department, the department of homeland security and noah will be assessing the possibility of consolidating various radar capabilities that could result in making some portion of the 131350 band available for shared use. it's also submitting a proposal to study the potential shared access of the band currently used for weather satellite services. while we believe agencies are making good faith efforts to meet our spectrum challenges, we know there is still more we can do to make the most effective use of federal spectrum. i do believe that additional
flexibility authorized for the spectrum relocation fund is the single most important step that could be taken in the short term, but perhaps it could be further strengthened in the future with additional funding and additional flexibility. for example, by supporting research and allowing more unlicensed use of federal bands. we are not convinced that other incentive proposals put forward today offer approaches that are likely to be successful. these proposals generally rely on market-based incentives that federal agencies are simply unable to respond to market-based incentives the same way commercial spectrum users. agencies are driven by mission requirements, not profits and they are subject to budget and statutory requirements and in this mission -based context, agencies do not have the tools to assess economic efficiency, moreover for an incentive to be effective it must influence the appropriate decision-makers at
the right time. what we are continuing to explore potential mechanisms that might be effective and ultimately we hope to make enough progress that we can bring concepts forward and begin a dialogue with other stakeholders. the evolution of 5g and the expansion of the internet brings with them a whole new set of challenges in providing a steady stream of spectrum for a wide range of uses and applications. we are just starting to explore the spectrum policy implications of the emergence of new technologies such as drones, connected cars and the vast array of internet of things and connected devices. we estimate the number of connected i/o c devices will double from 15 billion in 2015 to more than 30 billion by 2020. the faa estimates sales of drones for personal and commercial use will increase from two and half million this year to as high as 7,000,000 x
2020. 5g is is expected to enable very high-speed mobile broadband but if you are precision manufacture , redundancy and reliability may be a higher priority for you than speed. if you are a surgeon performing an operation on the patient in a remote location you might also need very low latency in your mobile connection to avoid delay. the aim of the technology and associated 5g standards is to allow for that. numerous examples from connected vehicles to various smart city applications will have their own unique requirements. the latest wireless standard ushered in advances in technology that allow mobile operators to mix-and-match their holdings as needed while also offloading some of their demands onto wi-fi. this approach was supported by advances in network technologies such as distributed antenna systems and other inefficient and innovations. 5g will incorporate these capabilities in more.
in addition to supporting current spectrum via bands, it will also include deployments of very high bands such as in the millimeter wave range above 24 ghz. frequencies. frequencies that are being made available for mobile broadband through the sec's spectrum frontiers. as we prepare for the innovations that 5g will bring, we need to understand the growth in the demand for spectrum is not limited to commercial and consumer use. just as innovation and technology have driven growth in the commercial wireless market, government agencies are finding new and better ways to more effectively deliver on the critical missions. spectrum makes it possible for soldiers to communicate with their commanders on the battlefield and from remote locations. helps first responders communicate in times of emergency. it ensures that the space craft can transmit important data back to earth. it enables satellites to track the weather so communities can
better prepare for storms. as i conclude, let me leave you with some final thoughts about what we've learned over the past ten years as well as some issues that i believe need some additional attention in the immediate in the near-term if we are to ensure that 5g and spectrum -based technologies reach their full potential. first, there is no longer any question that spectrum sharing has to be a major part of the solution. the only way sharing will work is by maintaining and even extending collaborative and cooperative processes and relationships that bring all affected stakeholders together. second, as the airwaves become more congested, we need to develop and enforce minimal technical roles to protect against unauthorized harmful interference. automated enforcement approaches make a lot of sense but will require increased investment to develop interference analysis tools. i also believe we are going to have to finally address the performance characteristics of
spectrum receivers otherwise you can limit the ability to effectively use all available spectrum, and we must take advantage of new opportunities such as 5g to build enforcement tools into the technology. third, as a nation, and really as a global a global spectrum community, we must continue to invest in research and development of technologies that will help us make the most effective and efficient use of spectrum. there are pieces in place from expanded use of the spectrum relocation fund to the wireless consortium to the national finance engine initiative but i hope that collectively we will be able to do even more. for that would like to see additional focus to more accurately quantify current spectrum demand, usage and projections of future requirements for both federal and nonfederal use. technologies and business models change rapidly. to ensure that we keep up with these changes, we must focus on
actual needs. wireless operators appear to be concentrating on expanding capacity in a localized fashion to address the most congested part of their networks so how will we collectively ensure that more areas get covered by the latest technologies in ted's zones are minimized at how granular does coverage need to be for the emerging 5g application and for iot specifically. how important is reliability in an iot environment. these are all questions that will need to be considered and answered in a way for future policy decisions. i am part of the collaborative effort they have established in the last eight years and the strides we have made in creating and enduring spectrum pipeline that will support the evolution to 5g. we have set the stage for a new era and innovating with our technical and policy tools, we
are well-positioned to meet the increasing and evolving spectrum demands of federal and nonfederal users. while my time at an cia is coming to a close in a few weeks, i am confident that we have the structure and team in place to build upon our success and ensure the united states remains a global leader in wireless innovation. thank you for listening. [applause] >> that was great. >> your minutes down to stand up. >> is up to you. >> makes it down. when we do that. >> when i look back at the accomplishments over the last eight years, and with the full information of hindsight and think about what is one of the
factors that strikes me as the most probable, if you had asked me eight years ago and told me how technology was going to play out and policy is going to play out, one thing that nci has done has been to get other federal agencies to relinquish spectrum, not just little bands, but lots of spectrum and could you tell us about that, how did you approach that and what i assume are some very difficult conversations. >> i think that is something of a misconception. people have the conception that
federal agencies dig in and are unwilling to cooperate in these areas. of course it helps that you have a president issuing a directive to the agencies in terms of the original 500 megahertz order, but mike sprints with the federal agencies has been that they respect the need, they want to make sure their needs are addressed, and i do think in the last eight years they have done a good job in making sure that the agency needs are brought into the discussion and i think they respect sound neutral and fact-based analysis which is something we have focused on in the last eight years. i think in that environment where we know all the issues are going to be exposed and evaluated and where decisions are going to be made based on the facts, i have found the federal agencies to be very cooperative partners in this effort. >> spoken like a true diplomat. that's wonderful. in your summary, the five points, one that one that really jumped out at me was your
talking about the need for additional technical standards, and you're particularly focused on receiver standards. could you elaborate on that. >> this emerged in one or two very large matters in the past eight years where the fact that we are looking at the impact receivers are having was perhaps restricted what would otherwise be authorized uses by people who have spectrum assigned to them. i think given the fact that we are having to put more services in next to each other and put desperate services in jason bands to each other that at some point we have to confront this question of making sure that receivers are causing problems where they don't have any legal or authorized rate to be as a way to make sure we can continue to take full advantage of the
spectrum we have available to us >> in your talk you spoke a bit about the spectrum relocation fund and what a great success that was. you also suggested that market incentives probably don't work too well with federal agents these days and encourage them to forgo the use of spectrum. one of the limitations of course is that it captures what i would call actual transactional costs that an agency might incur but it definitely captures the opportunity cost that the agency, using spectrum, spectrum, maybe not as efficiently as it would otherwise, is the future so bleak in terms of getting government agencies to take into
account, is that future all that bleak or is there any ray of hope given the successes that you have had with agencies developing this sharing plan? >> i think what we've been trying to do for the past couple years, i don't know when the work was completed but it was really to try to put ourselves in the shoes of the people and federal agencies that are trying to make these decisions about how spectrum is used. spectrum for them is just a tool to perform a mission. their mission is too keep soldiers safe on the battlefield or their mission is to determine if what the weather's going to be tomorrow or next week. for them, spectrum is just a tool. what's important important to them is that they perform their mission and in these life or death situation that they perform the mission in a way