podesta_email_00210.txt

podesta-emails 2,767 words email

P22 P17 V11 V16 D3

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Autumn -- Very nice job, as usual. Just a few points of mine and then responses to your questions. 1. The Loya Jirga approved the deal in November, 2013. 2. Karzai's request was not for a "pledge" of non-interference in the election but actual non-interference -- and that was one reason he gave for waiting till after the election, to see whether the United States actually interfered or not. So I would go back to the original: "non-interference in the April presidential election that will determine Karzai's successor." 3. As to Obama's statement giving Karzai "a face-saving way out," I think the reader will not understand what we are saying if we don't follow with the original phrase "if he really wishes to sign the BSA." 4. On the paragraph on which Obama fixes the troop numbers, the introductory word should not be "Alternatively" but "Secondly." This is all one statement, given at one time. This is the second point Obama must make in the speech. For we won't know for some time after the speech is given whether Obama's statements in the prior paragraph are enough to move Karzai to sign the BSA. And even if he signs it, Obama will still need to announce the troop number in this statement since the number is NOT in the BSA. So "Secondly" was right. 5. The results of the poll on public support for the U.S. operations in Afghanistan and for leaving a residual force was published in your paper. I am forwarding the site (which Aysha found) to you separately. 6. In the second to last paragraph, it's not just that the zero option would "threaten the safety of the presidential election" but would "threaten the outcome" (as I original wrote) in many ways: as you suggest, threaten the safety, but if the zero option did collapse the Afghan security forces, the election might not even be held -- or the turn out (especially in Sunni areas) would be so low that the outcome would have no legitimacy. This is why "threaten the outcome" seemed the right term. Let me know if there is anything else you need from us. And please confirm that you received these comments. Thanks again for your great work on this piece. Steve Stephen J. Hadley (202) 220-5061 > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:07 PM, "Brewington, Autumn A" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks so much for your patience, and I apologize for the delay. Can you let me know, please, how this looks? > > Best regards, > Autumn > > U.S. officials are struggling again with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. After painful and prolonged negotiations, they concluded a draft bilateral security agreement last year that lays the foundation for leaving U.S military forces in Afghanistan after 2014. It is expected to involve 8,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops with counterterrorism, training and other responsibilities in support of Afghan forces. > > Most U.S. experts on Afghanistan believe that such a residual force is critical if Afghan forces are to continue to professionalize. Only with such help will they have a reasonable chance of containing the Taliban and giving Afghan authorities the space to negotiate a political settlement that includes the Taliban. Some NATO forces would also remain, but only if U.S. troops stay. > > Most experts also believe that without such residual forces, the billions of dollars in financial support promised for Afghan security forces and for Afghanistan’s economic development will not materialize. Few believe that any Afghan government would survive long without this assistance. So the stakes are high — for Afghanistan and for preserving the investment of lives and treasure that the United States and its coalition allies have made over the past 12 years. > > Initially Karzai said he would sign the agreement after a loya jirga, or traditional congregation of Afghan leaders, approved the pact. The loya jirga approved the deal in XXX, but Karzai soon demanded further concessions: an end to counterterrorism raids into Afghan homes at night, active U.S. support for the peace process with the Taliban, and a pledge of? non-interference in the April presidential election that will determine Karzai’s successor. Lately he has threatened to leave the matter to his successor. > > U.S. officials have responded by pressuring Karzai directly and indirectly. They have set a succession of deadlines and said the agreement must be signed in “weeks, not months.” So far, nothing has worked. U.S. officials need an alternative approach. > > One option would be for President Obama to make a public statement praising Afghanistan’s progress in assuming responsibility for its security; improving the education, health and well-being of its citizens; and preparing for the April election. To support that progress, Obama would say, he has directed U.S. forces to curtail all but essential night raids. He is committed to facilitating the peace process, he would note, and pledges full support for an election free from all outside influences. > > These statements would not represent a major U.S. policy change, but together they would offer Karzai a face-saving out. > > Alternatively, Obama could announce the number of troops that he is prepared to leave in Afghanistan post-2014 and direct the Pentagon to develop plans on that basis. He would call on our NATO allies to announce similar force commitments. > > This step would go a long way toward reassuring Afghan presidential candidates, and the Afghan people, of America’s post-2014 presence. The lack of such reassurance has become a source of serious instability, threatening the election and the morale of Afghan security forces. For similar reasons, Obama should at this point resist any pressure to set a date for the termination of the post-2014 U.S. deployment. > > Third, Obama could state that while he is willing to sign the bilateral security agreement with Karzai he is also willing to sign it with the next Afghan president. U.S. officials should then stop pressuring Karzai — or anyone else — for a signature before the April election. Such pressure only strengthens Karzai’s hand, encourages further delay and makes the United States look desperate. > > Obama should make clear that his commitment of troops is dependent, ultimately, on the bilateral security agreement being signed. But a post-election signing by a new Afghan president would give more than enough time to complete the necessary U.S. military planning before year’s end. Indeed, experts say that even without the deal, U.S. forces could remain in Afghanistan after 2014 under the existing status-of-forces agreement, though our allies would have to negotiate a new agreement for their forces with the new Afghan government. > > Recent polling suggests that more than 60 percent of Americans believe the Afghan war was not worth fighting. [DO YOU HAVE A LINK FOR THIS?] But the same poll also found that 55 percent support leaving some U.S. forces for training and “anti-insurgency” operations. And lawmakers’ public statements suggest that a post-2014 deployment would have bipartisan support in Congress. > > Obama should avoid any suggestion that he might embrace a “zero option” and leave no U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014. Almost every Afghan expert believes it would destabilize Afghanistan, threaten the safety of the presidential election and ultimately risk the collapse of Afghan security forces. This would profoundly affect U.S. security interests. Afghanistan would once again become a haven for terrorists — who, history shows, would ultimately attack U.S. interests and territory. Afghanistan would contribute to destabilizing a nuclear-armed Pakistan. And the Afghan people would forfeit all the progress they have made, with our help, in building a more tolerant, inclusive, secure and prosperous society. > > Afghanistan’s presidential election is less than three months away. U.S. policy must not be based on frustration with Karzai’s mercurial behavior but on ensuring the election of a legitimate successor to Karzai with whom the United States can sign a security agreement that is overwhelmingly in the interests of both countries. > > The writer was national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration. > > > > > __________________________________________ > Autumn Brewington > Op-Ed Page Editor > [email protected] > 202-334-5120 > > ________________________________________ > From: Stephen Hadley <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:54 AM > To: Brewington, Autumn A > Cc: Aysha Chowdhry; Catherine Eng > Subject: Re: An Op Ed on Afghanistan if you want it > > Autumn -- > > Great. Standing by and will turn to it promptly. > > Steve > > Stephen J. Hadley > (202) 220-5061 > >> On Jan 14, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Brewington, Autumn A" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I will have an edited draft back to you in the next hour; and thanks for e-mailing all of us. The e-mail was somehow delayed in getting to my inbox, so I'm glad Fred saw it right away. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Autumn >> >> __________________________________________ >> Autumn Brewington >> Op-Ed Page Editor >> [email protected] >> 202-334-5120 >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Stephen Hadley <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:37 PM >> To: Hiatt, Fred; Hiatt, Fred; Diehl, Jackson K; Diehl, Jackson K; Brewington, Autumn A; Brewington, Autumn A >> Cc: Aysha Chowdhry; Catherine Eng >> Subject: An Op Ed on Afghanistan if you want it >> >> All -- >> >> The purpose is to help the Administration out of the box on the signature of the BSA. The op ed reflects a lot of input from U.S. experts on the subject, some key Afghan leaders, and from some Administration officials. I believe that the Administration would find it helpful -- and this is a problem that certainly needs solving. >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> >> "U.S. officials are struggling again with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. After painful and prolonged negotiations, they reached agreement on a draft "bilateral security agreement" or BSA. The draft BSA lays the foundation for leaving U.S military forces in Afghanistan after the end of 2014. It is expected to involve 8,000 to 10,000 U.S. troops with counterterrorism, training, and other responsibilities in support of Afghan forces. >> >> Most U.S. Afghanistan experts believe such a residual force is critical if Afghan forces are to continue to improve and professionalize. Only with such help will they have a reasonable chance of containing the Taliban and giving Afghan authorities the space to negotiate an inclusive political settlement including the Taliban. Some of our NATO allies will also leave forces but only if we do. >> >> Most experts also believe that without such residual forces, the billions of dollars in financial support promised for the Afghan security forces and for Afghanistan's economic development simply will not materialize. Without this assistance, few believe any Afghan government can survive for very long. So the stakes are high -- for Afghanistan, and for preserving the investment of lives and treasure that the United States and its coalition allies have made over the last twelve years. >> >> Initially President Karzai said he would sign the BSA after its approval by a traditional convocation of Afghan leaders called a Loya Jirga. The BSA received overwhelming approval, But Karzai nonetheless declined to sign. He has required further concessions: an end to counterterrorism raids into Afghan homes at night, active U.S. support for the peace process with the Taliban, and non-interference in the April election to choose President Karzai's successor. Lately he has threatened not to sign at all and to leave it to his successor. >> >> U.S. officials have responded by pressuring President Karzai directly and indirectly and setting a succession of missed deadlines, most recently saying that the BSA must be signed in "weeks, not months." So far, nothing has worked. U.S. officials need an alternative approach. >> >> One option would be for President Obama to make a public statement along the following lines. >> >> First, he would praise Afghanistan's progress in assuming greater responsibility for its security, in improving the education, health, and well-being of its citizens, and in preparing for the upcoming Presidential election. He would state that, to support that progress, he has directed U.S. forces to curtail all but essential night raids, he is committed to facilitating the peace process, and pledges full support for an April election free from all outside influences. >> >> These statements would not represent a major U.S. policy change, but together they would offer President Karzai a face saver if in fact he wishes to sign the BSA. >> >> Second, President Obama would announce the specific number of troops that he is prepared to leave in Afghanistan post-2014 and direct the Pentagon to develop plans on that basis. He would call on our NATO allies to announce similar force commitments. >> >> This step would go a long way to reassuring the candidates for the Afghan Presidency and the Afghan people of America's post-2014 presence. The lack of such reassurance has become a source of serious instability, threatening the success of the Afghan election and the morale of the Afghan security forces. For similar reasons, President Obama should resist any pressure to set at this point a date for the termination of the U.S. post-2014 deployment. >> >> Third, President Obama would state that while he is willing to sign the BSA with President Karzai, he is also willing to sign it post-April with a new Afghan President. U.S. officials should then stop pressuring President Karzai -- or anyone else -- for a signature before the April election. Such pressure only strengthens President Karzai's hand, encourages further delay, and makes the United States look weak and desperate. >> >> President Obama should make clear in his statement that his troop commitment is dependent upon the ultimate signature of the BSA. But a post-election April or May signing by a new Afghan president would give more than enough time to complete the necessary U.S. military planning before the end of the year. Indeed, informed experts say that even without the BSA, U.S. forces could remain in Afghanistan after 2014 under the existing Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) (although our allies would have to negotiate a new SOFA for their forces with the new Afghan government). >> >> Recent polling suggests that over 60% of the American people believe the Afghan war was not worth fighting. But the same poll suggests that 55% support leaving some U.S. forces for training and "anti-insurgency" operations. And public statements by members suggest that a post-2014 deployment would have bipartisan Congressional support. >> >> President Obama should avoid any suggestion that he might embrace a "zero option" and leave no U.S. troops post-2014. Almost every Afghan expert believes it would destabilize Afghanistan, place the Presidential election in doubt, and ultimately risk the collapse of the Afghan security forces. It would profoundly affect U.S. security interests. Afghanistan would become once again a safe haven for terrorists -- who, history shows, would ultimately attack U.S. interests and territory. Afghanistan would contribute to destabilizing a nuclear-armed Pakistan. And the Afghan people would forfeit all the progress they have made (with our help) in building a more tolerant, inclusive, secure, and prosperous society. >> >> There are less than three months to go before elections to replace President Karzai. U.S. policy must not be based on frustration with Karzai's mercurial behavior. It must be based on ensuring the election of a legitimate successor to President Karzai with whom the United States can sign a BSA that is overwhelmingly in the interests of both countries." >> >> >> All -- That's it. May be a little long for you but Autumn has shown great skill in helping to shrink my stuff without losing the substance. And I will help. At the same time, the subject is important enough to warrant an extended treatment. >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> Stephen J. Hadley >> (202) 431-9797