DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon

2010-07-30T09:05:03Z

DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:38:00 -0500

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen

July 29, 2010

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

On the Web: http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/
Media Contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public Contact: http://www.defense.gov/landing/questions.aspx or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your User Profile Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please e-mail support@govdelivery.com.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Campbell and Mr. Gibbons at the Pentagon Briefing Room via Teleconference from Afghanistan

2010-07-29T10:05:03Z

DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Campbell and Mr. Gibbons at the Pentagon Briefing Room via Teleconference from Afghanistan
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:27:00 -0500

DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon

SEC. GATES: Good afternoon. I would first like to start with some comments about the release and subsequent publication of classified military documents earlier this week.

First, as the president stated, the problems identified and the issues raised in these documents relating to the war in Afghanistan have been well known in and out of government for some time. In fact, it was the recognition of many of these challenges that led to the president to conduct an extensive review of our Afghan strategy last year, which concluded that our mission there needed a fundamentally new approach.

These documents represent a mountain of raw data and individual impressions, most several years old, devoid of context or analysis. They do not represent official positions or policy. And they do not, in my view, fundamentally call into question the efficacy of our current strategy in Afghanistan and its prospects for success.

Having said all that, the battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world. Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries.

This department is conducting a thorough, aggressive investigation to determine how this leak occurred, to identify the person or persons responsible, and to assess the content of the information compromised. We have a moral responsibility to do everything possible to mitigate the consequences for our troops and our partners downrange, especially those who have worked with and put their trust in us in the past, who now may be targeted for retribution.

Yesterday, I called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI's assistance in our investigation as a partner. It is important that we have all the resources we need to investigate and assess this breach of national security. Furthermore, the department is taking action in theater to prevent a repeat of such a breach, to include tightening procedures for accessing and transporting classified information.

As a general proposition, we endeavor to push access to sensitive battlefield information down to where it is most useful -- on the front lines -- where as a practical matter there are fewer restrictions and controls than at rear headquarters. In the wake of this incident, it will be a real challenge to strike the right balance between security and providing our frontline troops the information they need.

The U.S. military's success over the years rests on the abilities and integrity of its men and women in uniform and our trust in them. This trust is represented by the fact that, relative to other countries' armed forces, our military culture is one that on the battlefield places great responsibility on the shoulders of even junior servicemembers, to include entrusting them with sensitive information. The American way of war depends upon it.

But to earn and maintain that trust, we must all be responsible in handling, protecting and safeguarding our nation's secrets. For years there has been what I would call appropriate criticism of excessive classification and overclassification of information. However, this recent release of documents is a pointed reminder that much secret information is treated as such to protect sources of information, to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform, to deny our enemies the information about our military operations, and to preserve our relationships with friends and allies.

This recent massive breach should be a reminder to all entrusted with our secrets that there are potentially dramatic and grievously harmful consequences of violations of trust and responsibility. We will aggressively investigate and, wherever possible, prosecute such violations.

Chairman.

ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I certainly share your concerns about the recklessness with which classified documents were both leaked and then posted online.

As I said earlier this week, I am appalled by this behavior, and, frankly, outraged that anyone in their right mind would think it valuable to make public even one sensitive report, let alone tens of thousands of them, about a war that is being waged.

Yes, the documents are old and essentially raw inputs to our intelligence and operations apparatus. And yes, much of what has been revealed has already been commonly understood by the public or otherwise covered in the media. I can assure you, having just come from visits to Afghanistan and Pakistan, that none of what I've seen posted online or reported in the press affects our overarching strategy.

But, frankly, that's not why this is so destructive. The sheer size and scope of the collection now demands a careful review to determine the degree to which future tactical operations may be impacted, and the degree to which the lives of our troops and Afghan partners may be at risk. And I think we always need to be mindful of the unknown potential for damage in any particular document that we handle.

Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point.

And while I'm at it, let me make one: A big part of my trip -- indeed, a big part of my time as chairman -- has revolved around building and sustaining relationships. Everywhere I went over the last 10 days, those relationships were front and center -- not just for me, but for our commanders and for our diplomats.

I saw it in Kabul, where Ambassador Eikenberry and General Petraeus have forged a strong team and an even stronger dialogue with the Karzai administration.

I saw it in Kandahar city, where I met with a company of U.S. MPs living and working side by side with Afghan police at a security station near the outskirts of town.

I saw it in Islamabad in yet another of my engagements with General Kayani. He spent an entire afternoon flying me to northern Pakistan so I could see for myself some of the rugged terrain he and his troops have to patrol.

If we've learned nothing else in fighting these wars, it's that relationships matter. They are vital. We are not going to kill our way to success, and we sure aren't going to achieve success alone.

So in addition to making sure we understand the tactical risks from these leaks, I think it's incumbent upon us not to let the good relations -- relationships we've established and the trust we've worked so hard to build throughout the region also become a casualty.

Thank you.

Q Mr. Secretary, do you believe that the investigation should go beyond the source or sources of the leak within the military to include those who received or used the information -- WikiLeaks, the news media? And does the presence of the FBI in the investigation indicate such a widening of its scope?

SEC. GATES: Obviously, in the middle of an investigation, and particularly one that is in the military justice system, there's very little that I can say because of the potential for command influence. My basic position, though, is the investigation should go wherever it needs to go. And one of the reasons that I asked the director of the FBI to partner with us in this is to ensure that it can go wherever it needs to go.

Q To include potentially beyond --

SEC. GATES: I'll just -- I'll just leave it at that.

Julian.

Q Sir, PFC Bradley Manning was charged earlier with another leak to WikiLeaks. Do you feel that there was not -- was there an aggressive enough effort to examine what he accessed that he was not supposed to access? Have you thoroughly looked at what documents he, who's already accused, might have looked at in addition to what he's already been charged with?

SEC. GATES: Well, obviously, what I just said in response to Anne's question goes here, too. I'm just not going to talk about any specific individual or the status of the investigation.

Q If I could try again, then, on a slightly different matter. Is there -- are you -- you mentioned that there would be some changes at the tactical level in Iraq. Are you concerned that -- is it a problem that the rules -- there were insufficient rules in place, or that rules were not followed to the letter that allowed breaches on the front line?

SEC. GATES: Well, again, the -- based on what I've been briefed on and what I knew before, as I said in my statement, if the kind of breach involved in the downloading of these thousands of documents had occurred at a rear headquarters or here in the U.S., very high likelihood we would have detected it.

But the interesting thing is -- and it really was one of the lessons learned from the first Gulf War in 1991 -- was how little useful intelligence information was being received by battalion and company commanders in the field. And so there has been an effort over the last 15 or so years in the military, and I would say really accelerated during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to push as much information as far forward as possible, which means putting it in a secret channel that almost everybody has access to in uniform, and obviously many civilians as well.

We want those soldiers in a forward operating base to have all the information they possibly can have that impacts on their own security, but also being able to accomplish their mission. And so one of the things that we are going to have to look at with General Petraeus, and soon General Austin, is what kind of -- should we change the way we approach that, or do we -- do we continue to take the risk?

And there are some technological solutions. Most of them are not immediately available to us. But figuring out if we need to change the balance I think is one of the issues that independent of the investigations that all of us are going to have to work on.

ADM. MULLEN: Let me take this.

SEC. GATES: Yeah, yeah.

ADM. MULLEN: Can I just add -- make one additional comment to that, is in that change, what it has done is it has put -- pushed -- put us in a position to much better match the enemy in terms of speed of war. It's integrated intelligence more rapidly into operations, which then generates more intelligence, which allows us to operate much more effectively. And I think, obviously, as the secretary said, we're going to have to take a look at what this investigation tells us and make sure that we have the balance exactly right.

Q Admiral Mullen, you have mentioned that the founder of WikiLeaks may have blood on his hands. Do you know, have people been killed over this information?

ADM. MULLEN: They're still -- what I am concerned about with this is I think individuals who are not involved in this kind of warfare and expose this kind of information can't -- from my perspective, can't appreciate how this kind of information is routinely networked together inside the classified channels we use specifically.

And it's very difficult, if you don't do this and understand this, to understand the impact, and very specifically the potential that is there -- that is there to risk lives of our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines, coalition warfighters, as well -- as well as Afghan citizens. And there's no doubt in my mind about that.

Q What --

SEC. GATES: I would -- I would just add one other thing. The thing to remember here is that this is a huge amount of raw data, as I said at the outset of my remarks. There is no accountability. There is no sense of responsibility. It is sort of thrown out there for take as you will and damn the consequences.

Q With all due respect, you didn't answer the question.

Q Mr. Secretary, if I could just come back a minute, the fact is, the department -- the U.S. military knew weeks ago; it is part of the public record that tens of thousands of documents had been downloaded. Without referencing any particular legal matter, it has been in the public record released by this department. Charge sheets had been filed. The department, the military knew. So why the surprise? Why didn't the military move faster to assess this, to establish a team to assess it, to bring the FBI in? Charges were filed about tens of thousands of missing documents weeks ago.

And has anyone else been relieved of duty? Where's the command responsibility in the unit where this occurred?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, those are the kinds of issues that I think the investigation will address. I would tell you that, at least from my perspective, it has only been very recently that I was aware of the magnitude of the number of documents that had been -- had been leaked.

The reality is, at this point, we don't know how many more there are out there. It could be a substantial additional number of documents. And we have no idea what their content is, either.

Q Do you believe there's other documents that are either missing or downloaded?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, my impression is that the head of WikiLeaks has acknowledged that he has thousands of additional documents that he has not yet posted. So we have his own statement to that effect.

Q The department, is it talking to the founder of WikiLeaks to determine what he may have and just hasn't released yet?

SEC. GATES: No.

Q Is there any kind of dialogue? Why not?

SEC. GATES: Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure why we would. Do you think he's going to tell us the truth?

Q Should Julian Assange face criminal prosecution? Will he face criminal prosecution, sir?

SEC. GATES: I have no idea. As I -- as I said in answering the first question, the investigation should go wherever it -- wherever it needs to go.

Q You said you were taking steps to mitigate the damage. What, specifically? Are you taking Afghans who are named in those documents out of the country? Or are you doing other things that would specifically reduce the danger of --

SEC. GATES: Without compounding the problem by revealing what we're doing -- I would just say that I -- as I said in my statement, I think we have a moral obligation, not only to our troops but to those who have worked with us. And as we go through these documents and identify people who have helped us, it seems to me we have an obligation to take some responsibility for their security.

Elisabeth.

Q Mr. Secretary, can you -- without going into specifics in talking about the investigation, can you talk in a general way about what the FBI can do that the -- that the Army criminal investigation can't do?

SEC. GATES: Well, I don't know, to tell you the truth. I do know that -- I mean, we all know the range of skills of the FBI. And frankly, because I don't know whether this investigation should stop at the edge of the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and the military, it seemed to me, to ensure that the investigation goes wherever it needs to go, that having the FBI involved as a partner was very important in terms of leaving open the full scope of a possible investigation.

Q Can I ask you a non-WikiLeaks question? This is a Veterans Affairs issue. Both you and Admiral Mullen have worked very hard to ensure that the transition from warrior to retired or disabled under the auspices of the VA has gone humanely and efficiently. Yesterday, the VA opened an investigation into an insurance company practice where survivor's benefits are held by the companies in a large, interest-bearing account, the survivors get a small amount of it, and they're not told that their benefits aren't really insured by FDIC.

Andrew Cuomo, the New York attorney general has subpoenaed the companies today. It's becoming a larger issue.

I wanted to get your take on the subject, since you sit on an advisory council for servicemembers and veterans group insurance.

SEC. GATES: I do? (Chuckles.)

Q (Off mike.)

SEC. GATES: Oh, okay. (Chuckles.)

Let me just say that today is the first time -- well, let me say, until today, I actually believed that the families of our fallen heroes got a check for the full amount of their benefit. So this came as news to me. And so I will just say I will be very interested in the outcome of the VA investigation.

ADM. MULLEN: I would just add that -- and I saw the story as well and would have the same observation. Certainly there is great care taken in counseling of those once this tragedy has occurred in a family. It's a very difficult time. And that I certainly am anxious to see where this investigation goes specifically. These are people we have to take care of.

And as you said, we've both been very focused on it. Sometimes the devil's in the details, and certainly this is one I was not aware of.

Q Well, can you do anything from a Defense Department standpoint possibly to ensure that at least survivors know up front how their money is being handled and the disclosure up front, even though you can't -- you can't regulate insurance companies, obviously.

SEC. GATES: Well, I -- you know, all we can do is assure the VA that we will do everything we can to help them in their investigation, but also in terms of, as the chairman just said, whatever we can do to ensure that the families of the fallen are taken care of.

ADM. MULLEN: If I -- if I can, Tony, I would -- or, Mr. Secretary -- I would say that we have put great emphasis on expanding the level of knowledge of those who counsel, those who have to make these decisions. The Army in particular has put in over the course of the last year or two a significant focus here. Obviously, we've got to, you know, again, wait to see what the results are. But certainly we want to do everything we possibly can to get them their benefits.

Q Do you believe that WikiLeaks is a media organization that should be protected under the First Amendment? Or -- that's one question.

The second is, are you concerned that there are other -- without getting into the investigation -- that there are other people that might be leaking documents still? Or do you think this is something that's been sort of contained, and there might be documents out there that were downloaded previously, but not more being downloaded for release?

SEC. GATES: The answer to the second part of your question is I don't know whether there's anybody else out there that is a party to this. That's one element of, clearly, what the investigation will pursue.

With respect to the first question, I think that's a question for people who are more expert in the law than I am.

Q Sir -- actually, for both of you -- do you believe there's going to be a chilling effect -- I guess on the commanders, too, in Afghanistan -- believe there's going to be a chilling effect on future contacts with Afghans who may come forward because of the spillage of names out there? And if you do, is there something you all are planning on doing or doing to mitigate that future concern?

SEC. GATES: One of my -- I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources, and that involves your sources trusting you to protect them and to protect their identities. That is one of the worst aspects of this, as far as I'm concerned: Will people trust us? Will people whose lives are on the line trust us to keep their identities secret? Will other governments trust us to keep their documents and their intelligence secret?

You know, it's a funny thing, and especially for a so-called realist, but it's amazing how much trust matters in relationships, whether it's with governments or with individuals around the world. And it seems to me that, as a result of this massive breach of security, we have considerable repair work to do in terms of reassuring people and rebuilding trust because they -- clearly, people are going to feel at risk. And so I think this is one of the -- this is one of the consequences of this kind of a breach, both for those who leak the information and those who post it online, that they don't perhaps think about. But it is -- it is front and center for me.

Q Mr. Secretary?

Q Have you been contacted by other governments concerned about this, besides the Afghan government?

SEC. GATES: There has been -- I don't know precisely, but my sense is that there have been some conversations with other governments beyond just Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, frankly, I'm not familiar with the details of that.

Q Mr. Secretary, are you recommending or considering recommending that the federal government issue an injunction against WikiLeaks if it is indeed considered to be a news organization, or to forestall publication of further documents?

SEC. GATES: I haven't considered that at this point.

Q Something to be considered?

SEC. GATES: I would need to -- I would have to defer to the Justice Department on that kind of an issue.

Q British Prime Minister David Cameron said today that he can't tolerate the idea that Pakistan is allowed to look both ways and is able to promote the export of terrorism, is what he said. Does the U.S. think that the Pakistani government is looking the other way in -- from the allegations made in the WikiLeaks documents?

SEC. GATES: Well, what I -- what I will tell you -- and the chairman's just returned from there, and I certainly want him to address this issue -- what I have seen over the past 18 months to two years is a Pakistani government that has become increasingly aggressive in taking on terrorists in the western part of their -- in the northwestern part of their country. They have 140,000 troops in that area. If you had asked me would they be aggressively pursuing the Taliban in South Waziristan a year or two ago, I would have thought that impossible.

So I think what we have seen, and one of the reasons why these documents are dated, is that in the last 18 months or so there has been a dramatic change, in my view, in Pakistan's willingness to take on insurgents and terrorists, their willingness to put their own military at risk and take casualties in going after this. And our cooperation has been steadily expanding.

I've talked -- over the last three-and-a-half years, I have talked about the fact that one of the challenges the U.S. has faced in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is that they vividly remember us walking out in 1989, and being left to deal with their own security situation on their own. The notion that, under those circumstances and not knowing whether they could count on us to be there -- the notion that they would hedge in one way or another is not a surprise. And it is something that I have talked about ever since I -- ever since I got this job.

But, again, the point that I would make is I think we are rebuilding that relationship of trust with Pakistan, and it is evident in the expansion of cooperation that we have had with them, both in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency.

ADM. MULLEN: I think the heart of your question goes to the ISI. And specifically -- and I've said before and would repeat that it's an organization that, actually, we have, in ways, a very positive relationship, very healthy relationship between our intelligence organizations.

And there have been -- that said, there have been elements of the ISI that have got relationships -- a relationship with extremist organizations, and that we -- you know, I, we, consider that unacceptable. In the long run, I think that the ISI has to strategically shift its -- tied in great part to what the secretary's laid out -- focused on its view of its own national-security interests.

These are issues that -- and I have seen some of this; I was just with General Kayani again, and this is a subject we frequently discuss. And they have, as the secretary said, in that country, captured lots of terrorists, killed lots of terrorists, focused on terrorism. And they are strategically shifting.

That doesn't mean that they are through that shift at all, and they do still -- they are still focused on rebuilding this trust as well, and it is not yet rebuilt.

Q Can I just follow, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. GATES: Last question.

Q Mr. Secretary, what are your goals for your meeting today with industry? And also, what's your reaction to the QDR review panel's criticisms?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, the meeting today with the Aerospace Industry Association executives is a periodic meeting that I have with them. They are our industrial partners in many -- in many important projects. And so I try and stay in touch with them periodically. Both Undersecretary Carter and Deputy Secretary Lynn meet with them more frequently than I do. So I would characterize it as a -- as a routine meeting for me.

What was the other part of your question?

Q The QDR review panel --

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, I haven't read the report. And I have been briefed on the results. I think they have some important contributions that they've made in analysis. They've made some suggestions that I think we need to follow up on. But again, before I get into any specifics, I think I need to read the report.

The one -- the one issue that I've heard reported on in the news media a little bit, just today, has been what has been characterized as the commission's support for the alternate engine. And I would just tell you that I've been informed that -- or been told that Secretary Perry went out this morning and made clear that what the commission is talking about is the importance of competition, and real competition -- that is, where there are -- and now it's my phrase -- where there are winners and losers, not where everybody wins.

Thank you.

Presenter: Commanding General, Regional Command East Maj. Gen. John Campbell and Senior Civilian Representative Mr. Thomas Gibbons

July 28, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Remarks by Secretary Gates, General Casey, and General McChrystal at Fort McNair Washington, D.C.

2010-07-24T14:05:03Z

Remarks by Secretary Gates, General Casey, and General McChrystal at Fort McNair Washington, D.C.
Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:58:00 -0500

DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Campbell and Mr. Gibbons at the Pentagon Briefing Room via Teleconference from Afghanistan

COL. DAVID LAPAN (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations): Good morning, all here at the Pentagon, and good evening in Afghanistan.

I'd like to welcome to the Pentagon Briefing Room via digital video Major General John Campbell, commanding general for Regional Command East in Afghanistan. General Campbell assumed his duties just over one month ago on June 14th, and he joins us today from his headquarters at Bagram Air Field.

General Campbell is joined today by Mr. Thomas Gibbons, the senior civilian representative for Combined Joint Task Force 101.

Let me briefly note at the top that our speakers today will be limited in answering specific questions related to the recent Wikileaks release of documents and about efforts to locate our missing sailor. As you might expect, with the efforts ongoing for the search and recovery, we don't want to jeopardize that.

So General Campbell and Mr. Gibbons, thank you for joining us. I'll turn it over to you to make some opening comments, and then we'll take your questions.

GEN. CAMPBELL: Okay, thanks very much. And I was going to say up front that Tom will handle any questions on governance, development, the Wiki page, DUSTWUN [duty status whereabouts unknown], governors, provinces, Pakistan, and I'll take any other questions (laughter). But it's great to be here, morning in Washington, D.C., evening here in Bagram, Afghanistan.

As we talked about, we assumed command of RC East on the 14th of June from the great 82nd Airborne Division. Our appreciation again to Major General Scaparrotti and his folks for a smooth transition.

We've been on the ground since the 14th there and working hard toward our campaign objectives of protecting the people here in RC East.

I think you know that RC East is 14 provinces surrounding the capital of Kabul, about nine million people. We're really working hard toward connecting the people with the government.

Some changes that you'll see between the last rotation to this rotation is we're really going to focus on the police. We've been on the army in combined action with the army very well for the last several years. General Rodriguez has asked us to focus on the police, so we're making some changes now to make sure that we can do that.

We've also got a great civilian uptick that Tom will talk about, both in the State, USAID and the agricultural development. He'll talk those numbers.

We've really integrated our civ-mil campaign, and we can talk about that tonight.

We're going to focus at the district level for the governance and also the security. We believe that we're going to fall in on the campaign plan of ISAF and IJC that were nested very well.

There's 83 key terrain districts in all of Afghanistan. RC East has 40 of those. So we'll focus our resources and priority of effort those 40 key terrain districts.

We think we have some opportunities in the Pak-mil side to look forward to, so we're going to work hard on that; great opportunities at Torkham Gate, and we can discuss that if you have questions.

We really do believe that as soon as Force Package 3 comes in, which will be the 4th Brigade of the 101^st from Fort Campbell, that we'll have all the right resources, the right leadership and really the right strategy to take this to the next step.

It is really unity of action, working toward combined action by, through and with our combined partners, and in unified effort with our civilian uptick here as well. So we're really looking forward to that.

I'd really like to introduce Tom. Been in country about the same amount of time. Just came back here after he got to know his family. Came out of Manila. Came here for the change of command, spent a couple days with us, went back to D.C., and has been on the ground here for about two weeks.

So, Tom, I'll just turn it over to you for any opening comments.

MR. GIBBONS: Thanks very much, John. Appreciate it.

Morning, all. It's good to be here.

As General Campbell said, it's a very joint and combined effort here. As he mentioned there -- we're now up to about 200 civilians here in Regional Command East, up from just about 35 last year. So it's a very strong sense of commitment from our civilian participants who are coming from -- (audio break) – USAID, Department of Treasury, U.S. Agriculture Department. But -- and we're closely knit up at every level with our military counterparts here, here at the command level, at the provincial level, and down at the district support team level.

But it's not just about us and the 101st Airborne. We have an array of other partners we're working with here -- Afghan officials at the provincial and district level. Nearly 7,000 Afghan citizens who work with our -- work as implementers with -- on USAID programs and elsewhere.

But it's also a very international effort. We have nearly a dozen foreign military and civilian forces who are here with us in Regional Command East. Our -- there are French and Polish forces who each control a province, and there are -- we have Provincial Reconstruction Teams from Turkey -- (audio break) -- Republic and other countries. We -- (audio break) -- recently -- (audio break) -- to welcome both -- (audio break) -- Afghan citizens.

So it's a very broad coalition of partners, working closely and very pleased to be here.

GEN. CAMPBELL: With that, we'd really just open up for any questions that you have.

COL. LAPAN: Anne.

Q Sir, this is Anne Flaherty with Associated Press. What status update can you give us about the missing sailor and any details that you can provide about the circumstances under which he went missing?

GEN. CAMPBELL: Yeah, I think they just talked about the rules of engagement at the beginning that I would not talk about that subject, just based on ongoing recovery operations. So I'm not going to go there.

COL. LAPAN: Barbara.

Q General Campbell, Barbara Starr from CNN. When you look at something like Wikileaks, as a commander, what concerns you about the -- specifically, if you can, about the disclosure of that type of information and the risk that it can pose to troops, operations and Afghan civilians who assist you? And I ask this because so many people are trying to assess is this really a critical leak of information, or is it just a huge volume of relatively low-level material.

GEN. CAMPBELL: Hi, Barbara. Good to see you again.

First off as you know, we've been tied up with this DUSTWUN operation. So I've not really read any of the 92,000-plus documents that have reported to be leaked.

I would just tell you from my perspective though, anytime there's any sort of leak of classified material, it has the potential to harm or put in harm's way the military folks that are working out here every day, to preserve that.

So I have not seen any specific examples of what's in that. I've been tied up with this DUSTWUN operation 24/7. If it does in fact name names of people that have worked with coalition forces, I could see that that would have a detriment down the road.

My read just briefly from looking at a couple articles early this morning is that much of the stuff that has come out there is really not new news. It's between 2004 and I think December 2009. Most of that I think we've heard about.

So I didn't think there was anything staggering or new that we didn't know. There are some issues there about the Pakistan interaction and the tie-in with what's going on over here.

I would just tell you that we're really working hard with our Pakistan counterparts. I have Pakistani LNOs in the JOC here. I've been over to Pakistan since I've been here, to work with the XI Corps and the Frontier Corps.

I think we have a great opportunity here in the next six to nine months, with the leadership that we have on the border of Pakistan and down to the battalion level, to really work that aggressively.

There have been a lot of operations the last year-plus in Pakistan along the border. I think they realize that we face a common foe and we have to work together, to get rid of that common foe, to make sure that we don't have safe havens in Pakistan.

And some -- I think there's some potential to do good stuff. But as far as the Wikileaks, I don't think there's a great impact currently on us here today. And we have not changed any of our operations or any strategy here based on that.

I hope that got your question right.

Q General, Julian Barnes here with The Wall Street Journal.

I wanted to ask you a little bit about the Haqqani network, which does have a safe haven in Pakistan, operates in your area. Some analysts here have said that operations have diminished the Haqqani network's ability to mount attacks into Kabul and elsewhere in Afghanistan.

What sort of recent actions have you guys taken against them? What's the sort of status of the Haqqani network in RC East?

GEN. CAMPBELL: Hey, Julian, good to see you as well.

And you know, as I think has been noted before, the Haqqani network is probably one of the most dangerous networks here that we face -- direct tie right back into Kabul, for years has been based out of Khost and Paktia and has now moved into several different provinces like Wardak and Logar.

If you take a look at what happened with the Kabul conference here last week, where the Haqqani network and other insurgent networks had claimed that they would really attack that, and their desired goal was to upset and disrupt that convention.

And as you saw, the result was, they were not able to do that, that's because of the great work done by the coalition forces in and around Kabul, by our special operating forces, and then by our Afghan partners.

So it is still a very deadly network -- (audio break) -- work on every single day, one that I think is responsible for many of the spectacular attacks that you see here, to include the suicide attacks.

I think you know a couple weeks ago, we had the very first female suicide bomber up in Kunar. And I think over the course of the last nine years, there's been about 450, somewhere around there, suicide attacks in Afghanistan. And that's the first by a female, which really shows you that I think the Haqqani network is getting a little bit desperate, that they've stooped down to use females as suicide bombers, really disgracing the Muslim culture here of doing that.

You know, they take no holds barred against killing innocent women, children, Afghans every single day. They're in cahoots with Mullah Omar and the Taliban, have gone out recently and publicly said attack civilians, women and children that are working with the coalition forces and the Afghan national security forces.

I think that the Afghan network is a threat and will remain a threat. And we'll continue to work at disrupting them and neutralizing the Afghani- - the Haqqani network.

MR. GIBBONS: While there are a lot of aggressive military operations going on, General Campbell and his forces have worked very, very closely with the Afghan national army and Afghan national police.

And there are significant portions of Regional Command East that are accessible every day to our civilian and military forces, to go out and carry out the kind of development work that's going to make the -- that we -- that aims to make this a more stable and prosperous country.

We've got about 90 civilians who are out in Provincial Reconstruction Teams and district support teams. Many of them are out every day working with district-level and provincial-level officials, carrying out agricultural programs, infrastructure programs like -- (audio break) -- electricity capacity, education and health programs.

So while there's a tremendous focus on the kinetic side of this, there's also a lot of progress being made and a lot of effort being made on a daily basis here throughout Regional Command East, in order to stabilize and help develop Afghanistan.

Q General, this is Lalit Jha, from Pahjwok Afghan News and Press Trust of India.

Following up on Haqqani Network, it has not been declared as a foreign terrorist organization yet. Does it any way impact on its operations inside Afghanistan?

GEN. CAMPBELL: I had a hard time hearing the question. I think you asked that the Haqqani Network has not been declared a foreign terrorist organization, and does that impact on what we do.

Once again, Haqqani Network is a agile enemy that we've been going against here for the last several years. We continue to work it very hard. You have to attack it as a network. If it was declared a foreign terrorist organization, there are certain other factors that other organizations, whether it's Treasury, State, international communities, could enact against the Haqqani Network that could potentially help or disrupt the Haqqani Network. So in my view right now -- and I think both General Petraeus and General Rodriguez have said that we're working toward that. And I know that has to -- that call is made at level -- (audio break) -- Haqqani Network. And, you know, every day, the attacks against our coalition soldiers, against the -- against the people of Afghanistan, many of those come from the Haqqani Network.

And I've really got to talk about civ-cavs when we talk about that as well, because there's some misconceptions about civilian casualties that's coming out in the last couple of weeks. I know General Petraeus has mentioned this a little bit. But I don't think people back in the United States have a good appreciation about the civilian casualties. And if you just read the paper or listened to the news, you would think that the coalition forces and the Afghan forces were the ones that were causing civ-cavs. But on any given day, 90 percent -- the average for the last six months is 90 percent are caused by the insurgents -- many of those from the Haqqani Network -- 90 percent; so nine out of 10. And out of that 10 percent that are not from the insurgents, probably about 50 percent of those from the coalition forces are based on EOF, or escalation of forces.

So I think people all around the international community have a -- don't really understand the impact of how desperate the insurgents are, of attacking civilian casualties -- and have no qualms about killing, you know, innocent children, women and children, all throughout Afghanistan. So I just wanted to bring that piece up.

Q General Campbell, this is Joe Tabet, with Al Hurra Channel.

As you know, General Petraeus and President Karzai have agreed lately to create what you call the village forces. Could you explain to us, from your point of view, how this plan will help in facing or defeating the insurgency?

GEN. CAMPBELL: Yeah, well, I'm just having a little bit hard time hearing you. I think the question was both President Karzai and General Petraeus have talked about creating what are -- (audio break) -- the local police initiative. And the president signed that decree here, I think within the last week. It's going to be an Afghan lead -- an Afghan-run program, out of the Ministry of Interior. The coalition forces will be in support. Known as LPF: local police forces.

They'll determine areas maybe where we cannot get the ANP, Afghan National Police, or ANA, the Afghan National Army -- maybe some remote places that we still do need security, that the people of the local village have stood up and said, "We want to defend our community." Working through the local tribal elders, they will vet those folks there, and they will defend their local villages. Once again, the implementation for that and the instructions on how that will work have not come down from the government of Afghanistan. We'll work very closely with them, but we will be in a supporting role.

I think we've seen this work in Iraq very well, with the Sons of Iraq.

And I think we've seen it in different places in Afghanistan over the last couple years, where we've had one location up in Wardak where we've had that work very successfully over the last year under a different name, AP-3 -- APF-3 [Afghan Public Protection Program] in Wardak that has worked very successfully in RC East, and that's the only location.

Right now we're taking a look within RC East if there are places that we can work this. And we'll once again -- we'll work through our Afghan forces, through the MOI to make sure that we implement this by the bylaws that are set down by the president. But -- (audio break) -- the implementing instructions have not come down.

Q Just -- may I follow up?

MR. GIBBONS: (Audio break) -- General Campbell's forces in the 101st and also some civilian folks who've come over are working every day side by side with Afghan National -- Afghan National Police forces to work on training, help them set up communications and -- (audio break) -- law-enforcement professionals who've come over who have extensive background in law enforcement in the United States. So even as that -- (audio break) -- develops, we're already on the ground throughout the districts in Regional Command East, engaging very effective and aggressive training program -- the Afghan National -- (audio break).

Q Quick follow-up, sir. Have you seen lately any changes in the Taliban tactics and techniques, especially what we heard in the past two days regarding that they have surface-air missiles? Do you have any comments on that, any information?

GEN. CAMPBELL: I think the question was have we seen any change to Taliban tactics, especially air to -- ground-to-air missiles, I think is what you said. I have not seen ground-to-air missiles in RC East in the time that I have been here. We do see small-arms fire. We do see RPGs that are aimed at -- aimed at our aviation assets. We have seen mortar fire, have come close to aviation assets. But I've not see the ground-to-air missiles.

One of the tactics that has changed over the years is that you do see men now dressed up in burqas that'll go throughout the villages. It's something that we hadn't seen in years past.

You know, in the last six months -- or the first six months of 2010, compared to the first six months of 2009, the number of attacks -- whether it's complex attacks, small-arms fire, IEDs -- have risen about 12 percent. But the effectiveness of those attacks have gone down about six percent. I think we realized that as we bring in additional forces that the number of attacks will go up. And I think we're seeing that.

I think we all know in the summer time frame that it is the fighting season, and we expect and we know that we'll have a tough summer as we bring in additional forces. The insurgents will not let us bring in additional forces without trying to make a statement themselves. They just can't sit back and do that.

So we still have not brought in our fourth brigade into RC East. Not all the forces are set in RC South. And it'll take a while to see the effects of the uptick or the surge of forces here.

But not a lot of changes in the TTPs that I think you brought up; only in that I think we've seen instances where, because of the great aggressive operations by the coalition forces and by our Afghan counterparts, that many times where we would have expected a continuous battle, that they did not have the required ammunition, they did not have the spirit or the guts to continue that fight, and it is sort of a hit and then run.

So -- and then the other tactic, once again, and I can't stress this enough, is that they've really moved toward attacking the Afghan people. And that was brought up again, like I said, by Mullah Omar about a week ago, where they declared that they had to do that. And that just shows an act of desperation.

COL. LAPAN: Courtney.

Q Hi General Campbell. This is Courtney Kube from NBC News. I just want to ask you about a couple things that you said, ask you to clarify, maybe. The first is, you mentioned that the Haqqani network has direct ties into Kabul. What exactly do you mean by that? Can you expand on that a little bit?

And then also, what's your best estimate of how large the Haqqani network is in Afghanistan specifically? I know you may not be able to get exact numbers of fighters, but can you give us a number in the hundreds or thousands?

GEN. CAMPBELL: Hey, Courtney. Good to see you again. Two great questions.

First one -- and I may have misspoke, or didn't articulate that right. What I meant is they've really developed -- the Haqqani network has really developed, you know, out of Khost. And then it's moved into Paktika and Paktia. And that's been the normal ground there with the Zadran tribe over the years; and a direct tie meaning a route of movement into southern Kabul, and that has to go through Wardak and Logar. So I think that the routes that lead into the capital of Kabul go right up through there, and that's what I meant by the ties.

As far as a number, a specific number on how many Haqqani we're facing inside of -- inside of RC East, I don't have a good number. I would say it's well over hundreds. You said hundreds. I think it's well over the hundreds. I would tell you that they have no issue of recruiting, though, as they use tactics and intimidate military-age males and now females to incite them to attack coalition forces.

And there's no loss of the ability to recruit. We've seen places, especially in Khost and Patika, along the border, where we've had significant engagements and where we know that we have -- we have killed many, many insurgents. And actually they come back at it, so I know that there's no issues with recruiting. And we'll continue to work at that, and we have to attack that as a network to work at that.

COL. LAPAN: Okay.

Q General, it's Mary Walsh from CBS News. Why do you -- is the -- is the July 2011 deadline affecting you in your operations? And what are you telling the Afghans that you're working with about the -- that deadline? There was congressional testimony yesterday that the Taliban is using that as a way to tell the people that "The Americans are leaving, and that's 18 months -- 18 months away or a year away. And what are you going to do, you know, the month after the Americans are gone?" So how is it affecting you?

GEN. CAMPBELL: You know, the question, I think, is how does the July 2011 statements affect our operations here in RC East? And they don't. You know, it's been made out several times, both from General Petraeus, from the president of the United States, from General Rodriguez that July of 2011, we'll make an assessment. And based on conditions on the ground, we'll take a look at how we can adjust our force posture.

So right now, from RC East, I've got a year until that time frame. There will be a lot of things that happen day to day over the next year that will impact RC East. I'm not doing anything or changing how I'm attacking the problem set that we have here based on that date.

I really do believe that, you know, personally we've blown that -- (audio break) -- taken that out of context and in being able to use that against the Afghan people there in the coalition forces. I don't see it as an impediment to the strategy that we have here in RC East or all of Afghanistan.

And I know that several people and my bosses have said -- (inaudible) -- conditions-based on the ground. And we'll take a look at it once that time frame comes. We have a lot of work to do between now and July of 2011, and I think the Afghan people -- the Afghan national security forces, the idea was to understand that, we've explained to them. Because we've had to go back because of the pressure in the newspapers and the press and what they hear, that, "Hey, the coalition forces are leaving." They have questioned. They have come back to us and said, "Hey, are you leaving?" And we've had to go back and tell them, "This is an enduring relationship. We will be here with you, side by side, "shona ba shona" which is shoulder to shoulder. And so I think through our combined action with our Afghan partners every single day, they understand that this is an enduring relationship; it is an important relationship to us and we're not leaving them.

Now what I am doing is, I'm -- as I said at the beginning, I'm moving off some of the Army. There are many places that the Army is working pretty well. And I can take those forces and those resources and align them with the police at the district level. And I'm going to do that over the next year, and the Army folks that I deal with understand that.

But we have had to go back several times and reassure our counterparts that we are here. And I think they see that our actions speak louder than what they're seeing in the papers that say something about the U.S. is leaving here in 2011 because that's absolutely false.

COL. LAPAN: (Off mike.)

Q (Off mike.)

MR. GIBBONS: (Off mike) -- clear. This is a long-term commitment to creating a peaceful, stable, prosperous Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for extremists. And on the civilian side, we've increased our numbers here to nearly 200. And we've got more civilians on the way to help implement programs. We have multi- year programs in agriculture, infrastructure, education and health. And it's a sign of our commitment -- (audio break) -- continuing to build on the progress that's been made so far.

Q Thank you. This is Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia today. My question is that so much has been written and said about the recent happenings in Afghanistan over this week. But what -- my question is that, what is the mood of the people of Afghanistan, is there or also in the military, as far as this leak is concerned, and also the change in the leadership there? And what is the future, you think?

GEN. CAMPBELL: Okay, we just had a jet fly over and we had a hard time hearing the question. I think the question was, how is the mood of the people? Could you repeat it? We're just having a hard time hearing that question.

Q Yes, that's right. What's the mood among the military there and also among the people of Afghanistan as far as whatever is happening in the news media and also over these leaks? And I understand this is not new, everybody knew whatever was going on as far as the Haqqani Network or ISI involvement in Afghanistan.

GEN. CAMPBELL: I think I got that what's the mood of the people in Afghanistan based on leaks, the Haqqani piece of it. You know, I think it's different throughout RC East. Many places where we focus and the resources have been there and they have good governance at the district level, and the local governance and the sub-governors are looking out for the people in those villages, in those towns, in those districts, the mood, of course, is good.

In other areas, where you have abuses -- (inaudible) -- governors or governors and you don't have all the resources and they're not providing the needs of the people, then the mood is not good. And then there's other places in Afghanistan that are very isolated, away from Kabul, and, you know, they really don't want the Taliban there and in some places they don't want the coalition forces there. (Inaudible) -- mood is, don't force something on us.

So I think it depends on where you are in RC East about how you feel toward the government. I would tell you that every single day, both the civilians and the coalition forces, along with our Afghan counterparts, are out there among the people. We changed this up a couple months ago under the strategy of population-centric counterinsurgency, and you have to be with the people.

So we're really tied in, moving with the Afghan forces. All of the COBs and FOBs are joint COBs and FOBs, so they're living 24/7 with our Afghan counterparts. Most of then have both Afghan army and Afghan police, and many of them have Afghan border patrol. And so the ones that we don't, we'll continue to move those closer together so that we can work a combined action.

All of the patrols, all of the operations that we do here are by, through and with our Afghan counterparts, from the very initial stages of the planning all the way through execution. And all of those involve understanding what the people need, understanding what the people want. Many, many days, the primary task is for that ANSF unit and that coalition unit to go out into that village and talk to the people to find out where we can help the people.

So I think the mood depends upon where you're at. Where we have ANSF, where we have coalition partners, the mood is good. Where we've been able to bring in governance, development and projects, the mood is good. Where we haven't, and where the Taliban are coming in, the mood is bad, because they don't bring in governance. They don't care about governance. They care about killing innocent people and children. So I think wherever the Taliban is, the fear and intimidation that they bring forward, that mood is completely different from where you have good governance. Where the coalition is, where the ANSF is, they bring hope. And I think where you have hope, the mood is going to be good.

So, Tom, I'd defer to you on your --

MR. GIBBONS: No, I think it's absolutely right, that there is a sense of hope. It is a variable situation. We have three provinces here, Bamyan, Parwan and Panjshir, where it is significantly more stable. Our civilian folks up there are able to move around without heavy security and meet with government officials and implement our development programs in a freer way.

One sort of more subjective observation is that every day General Campbell and I -- nearly every day we fly out and visit provincial reconstruction teams and our military and civilian forces out there. And I can tell you from the helicopter-eye view, there's an enormous amount of construction that's going on -- homes, farms -- throughout the Regional Command East. And, you know, that in itself, I think, is a sign that people feel more hope and have a sense of looking forward toward the future. But we will continue, with all the variety of programs that we have here, to build on that.

One other thing that I think that we've noticed an increase of interest in is that there's going to be coming elections here in the middle of September, parliamentary elections. And we've held numerous discussions with provincial governors and election officials to see how their preparations for that are going on.

And there's a very intensive effort to ensure that these will be -- these elections will be as safe and effective as possible.

So I think that people are looking forward to the future here, and we're doing our best to help them create a better future.

COL. LAPAN: We have time for one more. Go ahead.

Q Good morning, General. Carlos Hamann with AFP news. Just wondering what impact you're feeling in that area from military operations on the Pakistani side of the border. I mean, are you seeing, for example, an increase in Taliban fighters being pushed over?

GEN. CAMPBELL: Okay, once again, having a little bit hard time. I think the question was are we seeing an increase of fighters and how is the fighting along the border.

Once again, we have probably about 490 kilometers of border with Pakistan. One of the first places I went when I -- when I came here was to Pakistan to meet the XI Corps commander and Tariq Khan, the Frontier Corps commander. I think there's great opportunities with our Pakistan partners to work the border.

We do -- and we have been working for a while now the border coordination centers. We have one up at Torkham gate. We have another one up at Nawa that is continuing to work through, and have one at Lwara. So there's three BCCs, or border coordination centers, in RC East.

I think the coordination at the lower level, at the battalion level, is very good. The battalion commanders conduct what we call border flag meetings right up on the border that include Pakistan soldiers, Afghan soldiers and coalition-force soldiers on the border where they talk about different operations. When they can work it at that level, that's the best coordination.

We have another set where the brigade commanders come in and work it with their equivalents across the border. We'll continue to do those up in the north, up in N2KL [Nuristan, Nangahar, Kunar, and Laghman provinces] and also in P2K [Paktika and Khost Provinces] with both brigades that I have there.

And then there's another set of border flag meetings where it involves me. In fact, we had one scheduled this week we had to cancel based on some other circumstances and weather. We're working very hard to reschedule that border flag meeting at the general officer level that I'll conduct with the XI Corps and the Frontier Corps. But I think there's great opportunity to work through there.

We've also taken a hard look at Torkham gate, and we've got an overarching plan to really look hard at not only the security piece but the economic impact of Torkham gate. And that'll depend upon working with our Pakistani counterparts as well, because it involves both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

All of you that have been covering Afghanistan know that you can't talk about Afghanistan without dealing with Pakistan, so once again, great opportunity to work with our counterparts. When we do operations on the border, it's transparent to our Pakistani counterparts. We had an operation about two-and-a-half, three weeks ago called Operation Strong Eagle. Before we conducted that exercise, we brought in our Pakistan counterparts, explained to them the exact maneuvers that we would do, and we wanted to run complementary operations on their side of the border that would impact and then really help us on our side of -- on the Afghani side of the border. And that happened, and that was very fruitful for us and just showed the great cooperation between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the coalition forces. And we'll continue to do that and get better at that as we enable those forces.

Once again, I have Pakistani LNOs [liaison officers] in my JOC [joint operations center]here, and I have sent LNOs over to the Pakistan side as well.

MR. GIBBONS: Hard to overestimate the importance of the economic impact of these -- of the border crossings here. Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this month signed a border trade agreement that resumed -- that had lain fallow for many decades. Very important advancement. And a significant proportion of Afghan trade comes across Torkham gate and Ghulum Khan and other areas. So the -- we're focusing also customs and border experts down there to help the Afghan border police and customs officials to improve efficiency, moving things across, and also to improve oversight of the goods that are coming in.

COL. LAPAN: General, we've gone a bit over time here, so we thank you and Mr. Gibbons for giving us your time. I'll send it back to you for any closing remarks you'd like to make.

GEN. CAMPBELL: Okay. Tom, you go first.

MR. GIBBONS: Just to say that it's a pleasure to be out here with so many dedicated colleagues, both on the military side and the civilian side. One of the things that has struck me here is people's willingness to endure significant hardships but to continue coming back. I've got one colleague here, Gary Domian from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who's been here for over three years now and has agreed to sign up for yet another one. So I'm very, very honored to work with civilian counterparts like this, but also particularly on the military side. Their sense of dedication and commitment to this cause is really very striking. Thanks.

GEN. CAMPBELL: Yeah, and I'd just like to finish up and tell once again thanks to the American people for the great support they provide to all of the soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines here, and our civilian counterparts. We can't thank our families enough back at Fort Campbell, and all the -- all the families back there that support us.

General Petraeus said that winning is achieving progress, and I think every single day we are achieving progress. And -- (audio break) -- some places, they're smaller than others; in other places, where we have some game-changers out there that we continue to work.

So we're very proud and humble to have the opportunity to serve. I think our nation can never forget the sacrifices both of our families and the men and women over here. We've had several fallen heroes in the time that we've been here. We can never forget they're dedicated -- and their sacrifice. And our thoughts and prayers will continue to go out to their families. They'll never be forgotten.

So we are so thankful. We understand that the mission we have at hand is a noble cause. We understand that we have to fight this over here to make sure it doesn't go back to the United States and the rest of the free world. We're very dedicated toward that mission. We appreciate your support. And we look forward to continued dialogue, through this forum and any other forum, and really just appreciate your support.

So, thanks here from Afghanistan.

COL. LAPAN: Thanks, gentlemen. Good evening.

GEN. CAMPBELL: Air assault!

(C) COPYRIGHT 2010, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE. NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION.

FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.

FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.

Presenter: Secretary Of Defense Robert M. Gates, Army Chief Of Staff General George W. Casey and General Stanley A. McChrystal

July 23, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Media Roundtable With Secretary Gates from Jakarta, Indonesia

2010-07-23T06:05:08Z

Media Roundtable With Secretary Gates from Jakarta, Indonesia
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:23:00 -0500

Remarks by Secretary Gates, General Casey, and General McChrystal at Fort McNair Washington, D.C.

(In progress.)

GEN. CASEY: The Casey-McChystal connections go back a long ways. Stan's the fourth of six siblings, all of whom served in the military or married someone in the military. So I'd just to take a moment to recognize the immediate family who's here.

First of all, the brothers, Peter, David, Scott and Bill, where are you? Wave your hands. Great, nice to see you. (Applause.)

Sam is Stan and Annie's son. Sam and his fiancée, Stacy -- I hope I got that right -- wave your hands. There you go. (Applause.) If that's not right, Stacy, work it for everything it's worth. And, of course, Stan's best friend, Annie. (Applause.)

I know you've got many more family and friends here, Stan, so I'm going to leave that to you.

Today, we honor a magnificent soldier and leader and one of the Army's most experienced and successful officers. Stan has had a truly remarkable career in both peace and war.

So I must admit I found it interesting when I looked at Stan's officer records brief; something that it was clear that Stan has not looked at since he was a second lieutenant. The officer records brief is the Army's documented record of a soldier's career, and it has a box on it where it tracks the officer's dwell. That's the time they spend at home between deployments.

According to Stan's most recent brief, he has accumulated 415 months and 11 days of dwell. Now, even using Casey math, that's over 34 years at home. So either Stan's deployments have been so secret he couldn't share them with us, or we couldn't quite get him into the fight. But I think it's the former and not the latter.

The reality is that Stan has done more to carry the fight to al-Qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department and possibly in the country. His vision, his innovative genius, his ability to bring disparate organizations together and his unrelenting drive and commitment to defeating the extremists that threaten our way of life have kept al-Qaeda off balance around the world and kept this country safe.

Stan, we are in your debt.

Now, usually when I lay out an officer's career, I normally talk about how many corps and divisions they've served in, but Stan's career has been unique.

He began his formative years as a paratrooper in 82nd Airborne Division following his graduation from West Point in 1976. His first battalion was the Red Devils of the 1st Battalion 504th Parachute Infantry.

But jumping out of planes didn't seem to be exciting enough for Stan, so he volunteered for Special Forces, qualified and commanded a detachment in the 7th Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg before he headed off for the Infantry Advanced Course.

After a tour in the United Nations Command in Panmunjom, Korea, he returned to Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the 24th Infantry Division for company command.

It was following this company command in 1985 that Stan chose the path that he would follow for the rest of his career. He was accepted into the 3rd Battalion 75th Rangers, and he has been a leader in our special operations community ever since.

Along the way, he mixed challenging assignments in the Rangers, Joint Special Operations Command and the 82nd Airborne Division with broadening experiences at the Naval War College, the JFK Center of Government, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the joint staff.

He left lasting contributions at every level. As a major, during the liberation of Kuwait, he delivered the highly successful special operations actions into Iraq. As the commander of the 2nd Battalion 75th Rangers, he spurred the beginning of the modern Army combaters program.

And as the chief of staff of Combined Joint Task Force 180 in the early days of Afghanistan, he established the headquarters that came to direct Operation Enduring Freedom.

While serving as the vice J-3 in the Pentagon at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Stan was selected to deliver the daily Pentagon press and Hill briefings on the war. Now, candidly, he didn't have to put up much of a fight for that, but he took the job and did it magnificently.

It was as the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command where I believe Stan made his greatest and most lasting contributions to our Army and to this country. He personally oversaw the successful hunts for Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other key al-Qaeda leaders.

He brought the intelligence community together in support of his operations by sheer force of will and unrelenting commitment to the mission.

Thinking back to 2003 and 2004, no one had really done the kinds of things Stan's folks were required to do. So he wrote the book and pulled the interagency together in support.

And not satisfied with just improving his own capabilities, Stan saw the utility in migrating these skills to our general-purpose forces, something he progressively did over time and something that has exponentially increased the effectiveness of our forces in prosecuting this war.

For me, working with Stan in Iraq was a privilege. I can honestly say that the work his team did against al-Qaeda made our success there possible. They applied continuous and progressive pressure against a constantly evolving network by building an organization that rewarded teamwork, innovation and risk-taking.

I watched Stan through the low lows of a just-missed target or lost comrade and the high highs of the Zarqawi operation. Throughout it all, he remained calm, focused and committed.

Although I do remember the night that we thought we had killed Zarqawi but still weren't sure. Stan had the body brought to his headquarters compound for identification. We decided not to tell anyone until we were sure, so Stan went down to check out the body and called me.

He said, "General, we've been tracking this guy for two and a half years, and I think it's him." I said, "How sure are you?" He responded quietly, "I'm sure." And that was the first and only time in our time together there that I heard his voice crack with emotion.

Following his time at JSOC, Stan was given a break as the director of the joint staff, the position he held when he was chosen by the president to head the International Security Assistance Force.

I'm going to leave the discussion of that period to Secretary Gates, but I believe that, in his time there, Stan began to establish the conditions for our long-term success.

When you ask soldiers about Stan McChrystal, what they think, here's what they say. They say he's a great leader. They say that, in fact, his people trust and respect him in a way that is truly remarkable. They say he's a man of integrity and great personal courage. They say he's always ready to laugh even in the most trying circumstances. And they say that he's absolutely selfless.

These are the traits of a leader that we value in our Army. In over 34 years, Stan McChrystal has applied them as he selflessly dedicated his life to protecting this country.

And while his operational experiences span the spectrum of conflict, I can think of no officer who has had more impact on this country's battle against extremism. He leaves a legacy of service that will be emulated for decades. (Applause.)

Annie, now, most of you know that Stan and Annie were high school sweethearts. And when folks think about Annie, the first word that usually comes to mind is "strength." Not only is she a marathoner, but she has survived and braved the marathon of Army life.

This is a testament to your overall, amazing inner strength. And she's needed that to navigate the last decade while Stan has committed himself to fighting this war especially since I've been told he's developed a few idiosyncrasies along the way.

One story claims that Stan has lived on Zulu time for so long that, when he comes home, he has Annie change all the clocks in the house to Zulu time. Another is that he's so accustomed to PowerPoint briefings that Annie has to slip him a slide if she's wants to get something important to him.

Now, I am sure none of that is true, but if it were, Annie would figure it out. Annie's been at Stan's side throughout his career and, as importantly for our Army, she has been there for the soldiers and families and communities across the United States.

Her commitment has been a personal one illustrated by her visits to wounded warriors, her presence at family readiness groups and her volunteer work, including the toughest but the most rewarding of assignments, raising an Army family.

Annie's contributions make it especially hard to say goodbye to the McChrystals. So, Annie, thank you for your courage, for your strength and for your commitment to the soldiers and families of our Army. (Applause.)

For 34 years, Stan McChrystal has been the man in the arena. His face has been marred by the dust and the sweat and the blood of combat in defense of this nation. He's demonstrated the kind of infectious personal courage that has inspired anyone who served with him. He is a soldier to his core. Our Army and this country will miss him deeply.

There is a monument in Burma in a British cemetery to recognize the sacrifice of a British division in World War II. It says: When you go home, tell them of us and say, for your tomorrow, we gave our today.

Stan and Annie have given their todays for 34 years so the people of this country and those in Iraq and Afghanistan can have a better tomorrow. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

And Stan and Annie, thank you for your service and for your friendship, and the entire Army family wishes you good luck and God speed. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert M. Gates.

SEC. GATES: Well, first off, I would tell you that the weather here today is worse than in Jakarta.

We gather today to say farewell to a treasured friend and colleague and to pay tribute to one of the finest men at arms this country has ever produced.

There are many distinguished guests and VIPs here today but none so distinguished and none so important to General McChrystal as his wife, Annie and son, Sam.

Like so many Army families since 9/11 and especially families in the special operations community, they have endured long separations from their husband and dad. And like so many families, they have done so with grace and resilience. Our nation is deeply in your debt.

We bid farewell to Stan McChrystal today with pride and sadness. Pride for his unique record as a man and a soldier. Sadness that our comrade and his prodigious talents are leaving us.

Looking back at the totality of Stan McChrystal's life and career, it seems appropriate that he ended up in the special operations world, as virtually nothing about this man could be considered ordinary.

Even as he rose to the highest ranks of the service, he retained his trademark humility and remarkably low requirements in his trappings, tastes and what we at the Pentagon call personal maintenance.

He had little use for amenities that tend to grow up around the rear echelon, much to the chagrin of a few of his ISAF colleagues. To Stan, fast food counted as fine dining, but neither fine dining nor beer gardens had any place in his war zone.

In spite of or, perhaps, because of his no-nonsense approach to war fighting, Stan enjoyed a special bond with his troops. They respected his devotion to them as well as to the mission. And as evidenced by all the uniforms here this evening, they remain just as devoted to him.

That's because Stan never forgot about the troops most often in harm's way. Always keeping in mind the frontline World War II soldier quoted by Stephen Ambrose, "Any son of a bitch behind my foxhole is rear echelon."

His fearsome exercise, sleeping and eating routines are legendary. I get tired and hungry just reading about them.

At the same time, this consummate Ranger possessed one of the sharpest and most inquisitive minds in the Army. A scholar who earned fellowships to Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations, a voracious reader who, as one of his friends told a reporter, was prone to spending his free time wandering around old bookstores and reading about what he called "weird things" -- stuff like Shakespeare.

The attacks of September 11 and the wars that followed would call on every ounce of General McChrystal's intellect, skill and determination. Over the past decade, no single American has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country's most vicious and violent enemies than Stan McChrystal.

Commanding special operations forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, Stan was a pioneer in creating a revolution in warfare that fused intelligence and operations. He employed every tool available, high-tech and low, signals, intelligence, HUMINT and others in new and collaborative ways.

As a lieutenant general, he went out on night missions with his teams, subjecting himself to their hardships and dangers. After going on one operation that resulted in a fire fight, some of his British comrades awarded Stan the distinction of being the highest-paid rifleman in the United States Army.

Night after night, intercept by intercept, cell by cell, Stan and his forces first confronted and then crushed al-Qaeda in Iraq. It was a campaign that was well under way before the surge when the violence seemed unstoppable and when so many had given up hope in our mission there.

Stan McChrystal never lost faith with his troopers, never relented, never gave up on Iraq. And his efforts played a decisive part in the dramatic security gains that now allow Iraq to move forward as a democracy and us to draw down U.S. forces there.

Last year when it became clear to me that our mission in Afghanistan needed new thinking, new energy and new leadership, there was no doubt in my mind who that new leader should be. I wanted the very best warrior general in our armed forces for this fight. I needed to be able to tell myself, the president and the troops that we had the very best possible person in charge in Afghanistan. I owed that to the troops there and to the American people.

And when President Obama and his national security team deliberated on the way forward in Afghanistan, General McChrystal provided his expert and best unvarnished military advice. And once we all agreed on the new strategy, General McChrystal embraced it and carried out the president's orders with the brilliance and devotion that characterize every difficult mission that he has taken on and accomplished throughout his career.

Over the last year, General McChrystal laid the groundwork for success and the achievement of our national security objectives in that part of the world. I know the Afghan government and people are grateful for what he accomplished in a year as ISAF commander and the lives of innocent Afghans saved, the territory freed from the grip of the Taliban, for the new vigor and sense of purpose he brought to the international military effort there.

As he now completes a journey that began on a West Point parade field nearly four decades ago, Stan McChrystal enters this next phase of his life to a respite richly earned. He does so with the gratitude of the nation he did so much to protect, with the reverence of the troops he led at every level, with his place secure as one of America's greatest warriors. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, General Stanley A. McChrystal. (Applause.)

GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: This is frustrating. I spent a career waiting to give a retirement speech and lie about what a great soldier I was. Then people show up who were actually there. It proves what Doug Brown taught me long ago; nothing ruins a good war story like an eyewitness.

To show you how bad it is, I can't even tell you I was the best player in my little league because the kid who was the best player is here tonight. In case you're looking around, he's not a kid anymore.

But to those here tonight who feel the need to contradict my memories with the truth, remember I was there too. I have stories on all of you, photos on many, and I know a Rolling Stone reporter. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

Look, this has the potential to be an awkward or even a sad occasion. With my resignation, I left a mission I feel strongly about. I ended a career I loved that began over 38 years ago. And I left unfulfilled commitments I made to many comrades in the fight, commitments I hold sacred.

My service did not end as I would have wished, and there are misperceptions about the loyalty and service of some dedicated professionals that will likely take some time but I believe will be corrected.

Still, Annie and I aren't approaching the future with sadness but with hope and iPhones. And my feelings for more than 34 years I spent as an Army officer are a combination of surprise that any experience could have been as rich and fulfilling as mine was and gratitude for the comrades and friends we were blessed with.

That's what I feel. And if I fail to communicate that effectively tonight, I'll simply remind you that Secretary Gates once told me I was a modern Patton of strategic communications. (Laughter.) Fair point.

So if we laugh tonight, it doesn't mean all these years have not been important to me. It means the opposite; that every day and every friend were gifts I treasure and I need to celebrate.

But first, I need to address two questions that we've been asked often lately. The first is: What are you going to do? Actually, Annie is the one who's asking me that. I'm thinking I'd be a good fashion consultant and spokesman for Gucci -- (laughter) -- but they haven't called.

The other question is always asked a bit tentatively. How are you and Annie doing? We did spend some years apart, but we're doing well. And I am carrying some of what I learned into retirement.

First, Annie and I are reconnecting. And now, we're up on Skype with each other. Of course, we never did that all the years I was 10,000 miles away, but now we can connect by video link when we're 15 feet apart. And I think she really likes that. (Laughter.)

I was so enthused I tried using Skype for a daily family VTC -- (laughter) -- where I could get updates and pass out guidance, but there's some resistance to flatter and faster in the McChrystal household.

The same is true for the tactical directive I issued soon after my return. It's reasonable guidance: One meal a day, early-morning PT, the basics of a good family life. (Laughter.)

But I've gotten a few night letters, and Annie's stocking up on ammonium nitrate fertilizer -- (laughter) -- which is strange since our new yard is smaller than this podium.

Although the insurgency is relatively small -- one woman -- she's uninterested in reintegration. (Laughter.) I assess the situation as serious and, in many ways, deteriorating. (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, look at her. I'm thinking at least 40,000 troops. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

Let me thank everyone for being here. This turnout is truly humbling. Here tonight are my wife and son, my four brothers, two nephews, mentors, comrades from countless phases of my career, and some special guests whose service and sacrifice are impossible to describe with words.

But because this crowd is pretty big, for good order and discipline, I've divided you all into four groups. Please remember your group number. (Laughter.)

Group 1 are all the people who accepted responsibility for making this ceremony work from the planners to the soldiers on the field. My apologies for all the time you spend in the heat. You're special people. And in my mind, you also represent soldiers all over the world. You have my sincere appreciation.

The second group -- (applause). The second group is distinguished servants of all nations who have taken time from your often-crushing schedules to be here. And thanks for your years of support and friendship. I got you out of the office early on Friday.

Group 3 are warriors of all ranks, and that includes many who don't wear a uniform but defend our nation with whom I have shared aircraft, VTCs, remote outposts, frustrations, triumphs, laughs and a common cause for many years. You are not all here. Some of you are deployed and in the fight. Others rest across river in Arlington. Most of the credit I've received actually belongs to you. It has been your comradeship that I have considered the greatest honor of my career.

Finally, Group 4 is all those who've heard we're having two kegs of beer in the backyard after my ceremony. This group includes a number of my classmates from West Point, old friends, most of the warriors from Group 3, and some others who defy accurate description. Anyone already carrying a plastic cup might be considered the vanguard of Group 4. (Laughter.) Everyone here today is invited to join.

To Secretary Gates, I want to express my personal thanks, certainly, for your generous remarks but more for your wisdom and leadership which I experienced firsthand in each of my last three jobs. Your contribution to the nation and to the force is nothing short of historic.

Similarly, I want to thank the many leaders, civilian and military, of our nation beginning with President Obama for whom and with whom I was honored to serve. Whether elected, appointed or commissioned, the common denominator of selfless service has been inspiring.

As COM ISAF, I was provided a unique opportunity to serve alongside the professionals of 46 nations under the leadership of NATO. We were stronger for the diversity of our force, and I'm better for the experience.

My thanks, also, to the leadership and people of Afghanistan for their partnership, hospitality and friendship. For those who are tempted to simplify their view of Afghanistan and focus on the challenges ahead, I counter with my belief that Afghans have courage, strength and resiliency that will prove equal to the task.

My career included some amazing moments and memories, but it is the people I'll remember. It was always about the people. It was about the soldiers who are well-trained but, at the end of the day, act out of faith in their leaders and each other; about the young sergeants who emerge from the ranks with strength, discipline, commitment and courage.

As I grew older, the soldiers and sergeants of my youth grew older as well. They became the old sergeants, long-service professionals whose wisdom and incredible sense of responsibility for the mission and for our soldiers is extraordinary.

And the sergeants major -- they were a national treasure. They mold and maintain the force and leaders like me. They have been my comrade, confidante, constructive critic, mentor and best friend.

A little more than a year ago on a single e-mail, Command Sergeant Major Mike Hall came out of retirement, leaving a job, his son and his amazing wife Brenda to join me in Afghanistan. To Mike, I could never express my thanks. To Brenda, I know after all these years, I owe you. I also love you.

To true professionals like Sergeants Major Rudy Valentine, Jody Nacy, Steve Cuffie, CW Thompson, Chris Craven, Jeff Mellinger and Chris Farris, your presence here today is proof that, when something is truly important, like this ceremony, you're on hand to make sure I don't screw it up.

I've been blessed with the presence of old friends throughout my career, friendships that began long ago at West Point, Forts Benning, Bragg, Lewis or countless other locations and shared years of Army life, moving vans, kids, laughs, disappointments, and each other's successes which grew into bonds that became critical on the battlefield.

I treasure a note I received during a particularly tough time in Afghanistan in 2007 from fellow commander, Dave Rodriguez, that quoted Sherman's confidence that, if he ever needed support, he knew his friend Grant would come to his aid if alive. Serving with people who say and mean such words is extraordinary.

I served with many. Many of you are here tonight. And not all the heroes are comrades are in uniform. In the back of a darkened helicopter over Kunar, Afghanistan, in 2004, a comrade in blue jeans whose friendship I cherish to this day passed me a note. Scribbled on a page torn from a pocket notebook, the note said, "I don't know the Ranger Creed, but you can count on me to always be there." He lived up to his promise many times over.

To have shared so much with and been so dependent on people of such courage, physical and moral, integrity and selflessness taught me to believe.

Annie's here tonight. No doubt she walked the 50 feet from our front door in cute little Italian shoes of which we have an extensive collection. (Laughter.) In Afghanistan, I once considered using Annie's shoe purchases as an argument to get Italy to send additional forces. (Laughter.) But truth be known, I have no control over that part of the McChrystal economy. (Laughter.)

But she's here like she's always been there when it mattered. Always gorgeous. For three and a half years, she was my girlfriend then fiancée and, for over 33 years, she's been my wife.

For many years, I've joked, sometimes publicly, about her lousy cooking, terrifying closets, demolition derby driving and addiction to M&M candy, which is all true. But as we conclude a career together, it's important for you to know she was there.

She was there when my father commissioned me a second lieutenant of infantry and was waiting some months later when I emerged from Ranger School. Together, we moved all we owned in my used Chevrolet Vega to our first apartment at Fort Bragg. The move, with our first days in our $180-a-month apartment, was the only honeymoon I was able to give her, a fact she has mentioned a few times since.

Annie always knew what to do. She was gracious when she answered the door at midnight in her nightgown to fight Sergeant Emo Holtz, a huge mortarman, carrying a grocery bag of cheap liquor for a platoon party I'd hastily coordinated that evening and not told Annie about following a Friday night jump. I got home not long after to find Annie making food for assembling paratroopers. Intuitively, Annie knew what was right and quietly did it.

With 9/11, she saw us off to war and patiently supported the families of our fallen with stoic grace. As the years passed and the fight grew ever more difficult and deadly, Annie's quiet courage gave me strength I would never otherwise have found.

It's an axiom in the Army that soldiers write the checks but families pay the bills. And war increases both the accuracy of that statement and the cost families pay.

In a novel based on history, Steven Pressfield captured poignantly just how important families were and, I believe, are today. Facing an invading Persian army under King Xerxes, a coalition of Greek states sent a small force to buy time by defending the pass at Thermopylae and were led by 300 special, selected Spartans. The mission was desperate and death for the 300 certain.

Before he left to lead them, the Spartan king, Leonidas, explained to one of the Spartan wives how he had selected the 300 from an entire army famed for its professionalism, courage and dedication to duty.

"I chose them not for their valor, lady, but for that of their women. Greece stands now upon her most perilous hour. If she saves herself, it will not be at the gates. Death alone awaits us and our allies there but later in battles yet to come by land and sea.

"Then Greece, if the gods will it, will preserve herself. Do you understand this, lady? Well, now, listen, when the battle is over, when the 300 have gone to death, then all Greece will look to the Spartans to see how they bear it. But who, lady, will the Spartans look to? To you. To you and the other wives and mothers, sisters and daughters of the fallen.

"If they behold your hearts riven and broken with grief, they too will break and Greece will break with them. But if you bear up, dry eyed, not alone enduring your loss but seizing it with contempt for its agony and embracing it as the honor that it is in truth, then Sparta will stand and all Greece will stand behind her.

"Why have I nominated you, lady, to bear up beneath this most terrible of trials, you and your sisters of the 300? Because you can."

To all who wear no uniform but give so much, sacrifice so willingly and serve as such an example to our nation and each other, my thanks.

As I leave the Army, to those with responsibility to carry on, I'd say, service in this business is tough and often dangerous. It extracts a price for participation, and that price can be high.

It is tempting to protect yourself from the personal or professional costs of loss by limiting how much you commit, how much of belief and trust in people, and how deeply you care. Caution and cynicism are safe, but soldiers don't want to follow cautious cynics. They follow leaders who believe enough to risk failure or disappointment for a worthy cause.

If I had it to do over again, I'd do some things in my career differently but not many. I believed in people, and I still believe in them. I trusted and I still trust. I cared and I still care. I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Winston Churchill said we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. To the young leaders of today and tomorrow, it's a great life. Thank you. (Applause.)

FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

July 22, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Statement by Secretary Gates at Presidential Palace in Jakarta, Indonesia

2010-07-22T21:05:02Z

Statement by Secretary Gates at Presidential Palace in Jakarta, Indonesia
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:14:00 -0500

Media Roundtable With Secretary Gates from Jakarta, Indonesia

MODERATOR: We have an opening statement from the secretary. And then we're tight on time, so we'll just try to get as many questions in as we can and, of course, want to make sure our Indonesian hosts get some questions in. So we'll alternate back and forth between the traveling press and the Indonesian press.

So thank you for coming.

SEC. GATES: This is my second visit to Indonesia as Secretary of Defense, and I'm pleased to be here again to experience first-hand how our bilateral relationship has matured.

This is a very important time in our relationship, as we're broadening, deepening and elevating the ties under the auspices of the Defense Framework Agreement that was signed in June and the overall U.S.-Indonesia comprehensive partnership.

I had very good discussions today with President Yudhoyono and Defense Minister Purnomo. We discussed a broad range of bilateral, regional and global issues. Our nations share a number of interests, and we spent some time talking about those and how we can work together to address our common security challenges.

Regionally, for example, we talked about the upcoming ASEAN defense ministers' meeting plus in Hanoi in October and our views of the South China Sea. Bilaterally, we discussed progress in three key areas: maritime security cooperation, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and peacekeeping operations.

These are areas where the government in Indonesia has clearly defined a role for the Indonesian armed forces, and we are already cooperating closely in these areas.

We also discussed where we could increase and improve this cooperation so that Indonesia can expand its leadership in the region and globally. For example, the government of Indonesia has vast humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief experience, and the United States is committed to assisting with improving the Indonesian armed forces' mobility and airlift capabilities in this area. Indeed, Ambassador Hume recently attended the sendoff ceremony for the first Indonesian C-130 that is headed to the United States for a complete overhaul in Oklahoma City.

Indonesia also has an important role to play in maritime security, given that it sits astride key sea lines of communication and other -- and nearby to other key waterways.

We discussed how we could support each other in terms of providing for better security and surveillance of Indonesia's waters and exclusive economic zone.

I would also note that Indonesia is one of the largest contributors to the United Nations peacekeeping operations and has a significant deployment in Lebanon right now.

We also remain committed to working together in the area of defense reform and professionalization of the TNI. As you all know, the Indonesian armed forces have undertaken important military reforms since the fall of Suharto.

Most recently, the Ministry of Defense has publicly pledged to protect human rights and advance human-rights accountability and committed to suspend active-duty military officials credibly -- to suspend from active duty military officials credibly accused of human-rights abuses, remove from military service any member convicted of such abuses, and cooperate with the prosecution of members of the military who have violated human rights.

The president and I discussed these commitments again today. I told the president that as a result of these significant steps and other reforms that the TNI has undertaken, the United States will begin a measured and gradual program of security cooperation activities with the Indonesian army special forces, KOPASSUS, within the limits of U.S. law.

The process will begin with staff-level discussions to begin common understanding of how each of us operates and trains. Subsequently, cooperation could include activities such as participation in select conferences and events involving non-lethal subjects such as rule of law, human rights, and the military decision-making process.

I noted to the president and defense minister that these initial steps do not signal any lessening of the importance we place on human rights and accountability. And that our ability to expand upon these initial steps will be based on continued implementation of reforms within the TNI.

I believe that taking these initial steps is important for a number of reasons, including that KOPASSUS members are already involved in U.N. peacekeeping operations and would also likely have a role in any major crisis response or hostage-taking incident.

What has struck me during this visit is that this is no longer a relationship that is focused on how the United States can assist Indonesia. It is a relationship that is built on how our two countries can assist the region and the world.

As Indonesia takes on even greater roles in providing leadership in the region and beyond, this becomes an even more important relationship for the United States. And our bilateral relationship becomes even more important to effectively addressing broader regional and global issues.

Since I noticed that you all have copies of this -- you can grade my reading skills.

MODERATOR: We have radio here, too, so they appreciated it.

Let's begin with Kompas, if we may, please.

Q My question is, since we have a plan that will have a comprehensive partnership and that Indonesia as an equal partnership, is it possible for USA to really have any cooperation because it seems that United States is still dictating in many things, including in terms of human rights.

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that actually a lot of the initiative for the improvement in human rights here in Indonesia has come from within Indonesia and from within the Indonesian government. And I would say that President Yudhoyono has played an important part in these reforms.

And so I would -- we have -- all over the world we make known our interest in human rights. But what takes -- what is required for action is the initiative and the will of governments around the world to legislate these reforms and to implement them. So this isn't something the United States dictates. This is something that comes from within.

And it is, I think, a measure of the extraordinary progress here in Indonesia over the past 10 or a dozen years, the progress that has been made in this area. And I understand there are dramatically declining numbers of incidents of violations of human rights. And I think this is a tribute to the people and government of Indonesia. This is not something the United States has dictated.

MODERATOR: Phil Stewart.

Q You said in your remarks that this would happen in stages, and you seemed to suggest there wouldn't be any lethal or any combat training for the Indonesian special forces anytime soon. Can you give me some idea of what kind of timing you're looking at?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that, as I've tried to make clear, that the growth in this -- the expansion of this relationship will be gradual and take place over time. And I would say that each step of the way, I think, will be marked by continuation of the defense reforms here in Indonesia and the deepening of those reforms. And as that progresses, my hope is that we'll see a deepening of this cooperation. But we'll take it a step at a time. We're beginning in a very limited way. But I think it is important to recognize the progress that has been made by the Indonesian armed forces and the TNI to take this step at this time.

MODERATOR: How about Radio Elshinta?

Q Thank you.

What makes the U.S. military policy lift policy to the Indonesian special forces KOPASSUS -- (inaudible) -- to the resumption of human-rights violence?

SEC. GATES: I'm sorry?

Q What makes the U.S. military lift policy to the Indonesian special forces, the KOPASSUS -- (inaudible) -- of human-rights violence?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think that the reason that we have been willing to take this limited step is, first of all, because of the defense -- the reforms that have been put in place over the last number of years here in Indonesia. And I would particularly commend the leadership of President Yudhoyono in this. And we talked together a number of months ago about a pathway forward that could lead to the beginning of a resumption of cooperation.

The Indonesian armed forces have taken that path. We are -- and we are responding to the progress that has been made and the commitments that I talked about in my prepared remarks that the Indonesian -- that TNI has made and that the government of Indonesia made. So it's these commitments, the progress we see in fulfilling these commitments, and the commitment to continue fulfilling them that led us to the conclusion that we could take this limited step.

MODERATOR: How about Daphne?

Q Sir, what other measures would you like to see implemented within the military in Indonesia that will, you know, convince you to actually go on with this cooperation and go further up to combat training, for example?

SEC. GATES: Well, there are a number of pieces of reform legislation relating to the defense arena that are pending. Those would obviously be useful. But I would say I think, again, the emphasis is on a step-by-step process. And before we start thinking about step two or step three, let's first implement step one and then see how we go and move on.

MODERATOR: Can you -- your placard in the corner, can you switch that so I can see it? Thank you.

How about Media Indonesia? Do you have anything?

Q Yes.

So from your statement, can I say that the U.S. government is satisfied with the reform done by the TNI?

SEC. GATES: I think what you can say is that we are impressed by the progress that has been made, by the commitments that have been made for further reform and continuing reform. And we believe that that justifies this limited step that we have taken.

MODERATOR: Yeah, go ahead.

Q Mr. Secretary, the U.S. military has strengthened its relationships with a number of countries -- Pakistan, Cambodia, Indonesia and others that haven't always had very good reputations in terms of human rights. Are you concerned that the U.S. might be seen as losing its voice or influence in this regard, that it doesn't put the same priority on human rights as it does on pressing security needs?

SEC. GATES: I think that the question boils down to how do you best further advance human rights. And my view is that, particularly if people are making an effort to make progress, that recognizing that effort and working with them further will produce greater gains in human rights for people than simply standing back and shouting at people.

And so I think that we do -- there are expectations that we have. And as I said, we laid out a path early in the year of what it would take. The commitments that I described in this paper have been undertaken. They are fulfilling those commitments. We anticipate they will continue to fulfill them. We think this is a pathway to greater human rights rather than a lessening of interest or priority in human rights.

MODERATOR: Sir, please.

Q I just would like to be more specific. Is it also including -- (inaudible) -- modernize our weapons?

SEC. GATES: I'm sorry?

Q This defense reform, is it also including conversation -- (inaudible) -- modernize our weapons?

SEC. GATES: We are very interested in working with the TNI about force modernization. We probably have one of the most active programs of cooperation with the TNI more broadly of any country certainly in the Pacific Command area.

There'll be -- in fiscal year '11, there'll be something like 140 different joint military activities. We're clearly working with -- as I referenced in my remarks, we're clearly working with respect to the C-130s and upgrading those. And we're also willing to look at other areas where we can cooperate with Indonesia as well.

MODERATOR: Elisabeth.

Q How hard did you have to work to convince -- (inaudible) -- State Department and the White House that this was a good idea?

SEC. GATES: Secretary Clinton and I were both convinced that this step forward was the right thing to do at this time.

Q And the White House was --

SEC. GATES: And we -- and the talking points, the whole thing that I've said, was signed off on by the National Security Council. So this represents -- this is not just a Department of Defense statement. This is a United States government decision.

MODERATOR: Yeah, let's go to -- how about Koran Tempo? Do you have anything, sir? Nothing? You.

Q Me?

MODERATOR: Yeah.

Q I'm from VIVAnews.

MODERATOR: Oh, sorry. There's a misplaced placard there. VIVAnews, you got anything?

Q Yes, thank you. Regarding the progress of the -- (inaudible) -- and also how do you assess the progress in these two regions?

SEC. GATES: You have just exceeded my level of expertise. Let me ask the ambassador if he has any comment.

AMB. HUME: Yeah, I would just say briefly, I think if you look at Aceh, you have a remarkable evolution over the last number of years in terms of peace and peaceful cooperation. You had the elections, you had no problems there during the elections, so I would say enormous progress.

(Inaudible) -- you also have a lot of engagement by the Indonesian government, just some local objections to the speed with which the agreements to improve social conditions there have gone forward. But what I see when I go out there is there is a remarkable amount of activity back and forth between the central authorities and the local government there -- not enough progress but it's still pretty remarkable.

MODERATOR: David Cloud.

Q Sir, have you had a chance, or have your underlings, for lack of a better term, had a chance to brief the Hill about this? I'm most interested in whether you've talked to Senator Leahy and others who have led the charge on restricting U.S. military relationships in these sorts of situations.

SEC. GATES: Admiral Mullen has had a couple of telephone conversations with Senator Leahy over the past week, I am told. I don't have any first-hand information and I'm completely at a loss in terms of the time frame.

I guess Wednesday night, or Wednesday afternoon there were some conversations with people on the Hill who are particularly interested in this area, and by and large the feedback I've gotten -- and I can only tell you sort of third-hand at this point -- is that they thought these limited steps were okay.

MODERATOR: Is it Sinir Harafam?

Q Actually --

SEC. GATES: Of course they'll all speak up tomorrow and make a liar out of me -- but that's what I've heard.

Q The cooperation -- (inaudible) -- in three areas, with maritime, humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. And I want to ask about the cooperation on trans-border crime in this region. How is the cooperation between the United States and Indonesia, and how the United States sees Indonesia in this area, transborder crime?

SEC. GATES: Well, I would say, more broadly, that, first of all, I think the counterterrorism cooperation between our two countries is very strong and I would congratulate Indonesia on the success of its counterterrorism efforts over the last couple of years. Even since my last visit here in 2008 there have been some notable counterterrorism achievements and successes.

By the same token, I think that the effort that we have made, working with not just Indonesia but also Malaysia and Singapore in terms of maritime surveillance with respect to piracy and crime and so on has really had quite a positive effect. And I think the three countries, using some of the radars and other equipment that we have provided, I think there has been a real change in the environment in terms of crime and piracy, say, compared to off the Africa coast, Horn of Africa.

So I would say that these transnational issues, that the cooperation not just between the United States and Indonesia but among a number of countries here in the region has been very positive and is certainly headed in the right direction.

MODERATOR: Yeah, go ahead.

Q On North Korea --

MODERATOR: The floor is yours.

Q Today, North Korea Delegation spokesman in ARF, Hanoi condemned U.S.-Korea naval exercise as a threat to global peace. What is your response on that?

SEC. GATES: My response to that is I condemn their sinking of the Cheonan.

MODERATOR: How about Republika?

Q I'm actually with Associated Press.

MODERATOR: Okay -- these placards.

Q This was the only seat.

MODERATOR: Okay, AP.

Q Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, you mentioned -- going back to U.S.-Indonesia military relations, you mentioned this is the first step in a new relationship with KOPASSUS. Can you give us anymore details about what the first step entails? Is it just the announcement? In your speech you say "gradual program of security cooperation activities" with KOPASSUS. What does that mean?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, I think the statement also talks about the fact that we'll start with talks between staffs on the different approach to operations and training of the two, and then we could proceed to deal with subjects and events associated with rule of law, human rights, and military decision-making.

MODERATOR: You already had one, so let's be -- I don't how to call the AP. I guess they are ours, but how about this -- you already had some -- you in the corner. Yeah. Who are you with?

Q From Republika

SEC. GATES: It's a trick question.

Q (Inaudible) -- cooperation, Indonesia and South Korea, to improve fighter aircraft specifically F-16.

SEC. GATES: I'm sorry; would you repeat that?

MODERATOR: Can you say it again, sir?

Q Can you comment about military cooperation, Indonesia and South Korea, to improve fighter aircraft -- (inaudible).

SEC. GATES: One again, you have exceeded my level of knowledge. This is the first I've heard of such a program.

MODERATOR: Indonesian-South Korean cooperation?

Q Yeah.

MODERATOR: It's probably exceeded your knowledge too, Mr. Ambassador.

Okay, let's wait for the South Korean MoD [Minister of Defense] to pass through. How about the Jakarta Post?

Q I was thinking about maritime security cooperation. Will there be a cooperation between the U.S. and the Indonesia intelligence information sharing so that both -- I mean, Indonesia will know what kind of vessels that pass through Indonesian waters, and their moves and their destinations? This can be used to prevent any attempt of drug trafficking, terrorism, et cetera.

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, I would say that the effort that we have funded in terms of radars and technical intelligence and so on, with respect to Indonesia and Malaysia and Singapore, is itself a form of intelligence and intelligence sharing. And I think that we have a strong foundation in that area and I would expect it to continue to expand.

MODERATOR: How about the Jakarta Globe?

Q Mr. Secretary, for the past year we have seen U.S. officials bring the region -- (inaudible) -- Indonesia, and in accordance to your speech here -- (inaudible) -- even greater roles in providing leadership in the region and beyond. How do you see the U.S. has significance including the region and in Indonesia providing leadership? How is the U.S. assisting Indonesia in providing leadership in the region?

SEC. GATES: Well, I see us as partners, and I think that some of the programs that we have together enable the expansion and improvement of Indonesian military capabilities, particularly in the three areas that I described: maritime surveillance and security, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and in peace-keeping.

In each of these areas I think we can provide assistance to Indonesia. And in this partnership, both play a role here in the region.

MODERATOR: Yoso.

Q Secretary, on the South China Sea, I'm wondering if you touched on their Chinese naval buildup in the region with the conversation with your counterpart.

SEC. GATES: We didn't talk about the Chinese naval buildup as such. We did talk about the disputes in the South China Sea, and we talked about our shared view that these disputes should be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law. That they probably should be resolved -- preferably should be resolved multilaterally. And that they should be done -- and that our overall approach is that we're against any kind of coercion.

We're against the use of force and we're against anything that hinders stability, the freedom of navigation or free economic development. Within that framework, the disputes need to be addressed through dialogue and through negotiation.

MODERATOR: How about Voice of America?

Q You know, human rights groups are asking that the Indonesian government hold open investigations and prosecutions of those involved in human rights abuses in KOPASSUS before any sort of military engagement takes place. What's your reaction to that?

SEC. GATES: Well, I would tell you, first of all, our position is the commitments that the Indonesians have made are, in our view, sufficient to justify this first step. I would say that in terms of what's happened in the past, whenever we cooperate with another country's military, we vet not only individuals but the units those individuals are assigned to, to see if there have been human rights violations.

The embassy here is rigorous in that effort and in providing us that information, and that's our way of insuring that at least the people that we're working with were not previously involved in human rights violations.

MODERATOR: Any of our Asian traveling press? Yes, please.

Q Secretary, I was wondering, how do you rate your stay in South Korea for three days and four nights and 2+2 meeting and the meeting with the president Lee Myung-bak? And I'm wondering, still do you think that North Korea would like to make an asymmetric attack like they did with the Cheonan in the future?

SEC. GATES: Because of my visit?

Q Yeah, either to have your evaluation of the 2+2 meeting -- (inaudible).

SEC. GATES: Well, I think the 2+2 meeting -- first of all, it's important to remember that the occasion for the 2+2 meeting was the anniversary of the 60th -- was the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-ROK alliance that came about because of the North Korean invasion.

And we discussed the fullest range of bilateral issues, regional issues, obviously North Korea, and stability in the region, and global issues as well. And I think we had very thorough talks and I think it was an important step forward in the strength of the alliance.

MODERATOR: John, do you have anything?

Q No sir.

MODERATOR: Okay. Yes, please.

Q Please, different subject - may I ask a Futenma issue?

MODERATOR: Futenma issue?

SEC. GATES: Sure.

Q Okay. Yes, my name is Takashi Fudo with Jiji Presss, Japan. Thank you very much. Regarding the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa in Japan, Japanese defense minister said the Futenma replacement facility issue should be delayed by the end of November when the Okinawan governor election is done. So, what do you think of this idea, the delay of the Futenma issue? Is there any concern you have?

SEC. GATES: First of all, I just would like to express my appreciation for the agreement of a few weeks ago that we would go forward -- between the two governments that we would go forward with Futenma. I think it is clear that there are some domestic political challenges that the Japanese government faces in this regard, and speaking for myself personally, I am willing to be patient as they deal with those issues.

MODERATOR: Okay, how about one last one from the Indonesian --

Q The U.S. has military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a Muslim country. How will the security measures be during the Ramadan month of August? August is -- Ramadan is coming, so will there going to be any changes in regard to Muslim -- (inaudible)?

SEC. GATES: I'm sorry; what was the question?

MODERATOR: Just, are you going to change any operations during Ramadan in Iraq or Afghanistan?

SEC. GATES: No, but in Iraq, again, in keeping with the agreements that we have with the Iraqi government, our forces will be down to 50,000 in Iraq by the first of September and will be going to zero at the end of next year.

MODERATOR: Okay, one last one here from Kompas.

Q Mr. Secretary, I'm wondering, how can the USA compete with China when China is now very eager to cooperate with many countries without asking about human rights whatsoever? So, what do you think about that?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, I think most of the people in the world care about human rights. Some of their governments may not. And I think, frankly, the United States is on the side of history in this area. And we want good relations with all countries as well and we're open to talking with all countries.

But our commitment to human rights and to human liberty is as old as our republic. We will never be silent about these issues. And, frankly, I think -- as I say, I think you're looking at somebody who was very much involved in the Cold War and with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Three-hundred-million people found a much greater degree of freedom than they had had in their entire lifetimes. This is the direction of history and I think we're on the side of history.

MODERATOR: That's a good note to end on. Thank you, guys, for coming.

(C) COPYRIGHT 2010, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE., NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

July 22, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Joint Press Conference with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and South Korean Officials from Seoul, South Korea

2010-07-22T12:05:03Z

Joint Press Conference with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and South Korean Officials from Seoul, South Korea
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:14:00 -0500

Statement by Secretary Gates at Presidential Palace in Jakarta, Indonesia

SEC GATES: Thank you and good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be back in Jakarta. I just concluded a very good meeting with the president and his colleagues. We discussed a broad range of bilateral, regional and global security issues and talked about many areas where our two militaries are working together to advance our common interests.

I was pleased to be able to tell the president that as a result of Indonesian military reforms over the past decade, the ongoing professionalization of the TNI, and recent actions taken by the Ministry of Defense to address human rights issues, the United States will begin a gradual, limited program of security cooperation activities with the Indonesian Army Special Forces.

I noted to the president that these initial steps will take place within the limits of U.S. law and do not signal any lessening of the importance we place on human rights and accountability. What's more, our ability to expand upon these initial steps will depend upon continued implementation of reforms within Kopassus and TNI as a whole.

We consider this a very significant development in our military to military relationship and look forward to working even more closely with TNI in the years to come. Now, if you'll excuse me, the minister and I have to meet to discuss this and other security matters. And, I'll be meeting with the Indonesian and U.S. press later this afternoon to take your questions. Thank you.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, South Korean Minister of National Defense Kim Tae-Young, and South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Yu Myung-Hwan

July 21, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Statement by British Maj. Gen. Carter from Afghanistan

2010-07-22T09:05:02Z

Statement by British Maj. Gen. Carter from Afghanistan
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:17:00 -0500

Joint Press Conference with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and South Korean Officials from Seoul, South Korea

(Note: The South Korean ministers' remarks were provided through an interpreter.)

MIN YU : Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Let me start by welcoming once again Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates on their visit to Seoul to attend the ROK-U.S. foreign and defense ministers meeting.

As all of you know, today's meeting is being held on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, in accordance with a joint decision by President Lee and President Obama last November, and marks the first of its kind between the ROK and the U.S.

Given the special significance of today's gathering, the four of us visited the joint security area at Panmunjom village this morning. We were reminded of the cold reality of a divided Korea and that the ROK-U.S. alliance will continue to remain vital in deterring war and maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Later in the day, we visited the war memorial to honor the selfless sacrifice of the fallen men and women of the Republic of Korea and the United States, as well as those of the United Nations, in the service of freedom and peace during the Korean War, and the sailors who perished with the Cheonan.

These visits have allowed us to reflect upon the noble foundations of our blood-forged alliance. At today's meeting, we appraised the successful development of the ROK-U.S. alliance over the last six decades and held far-reaching and in-depth consultations on topics of mutual interest and major issues such as our security commitment and strengthening of the alliance, North Korea, as well as regional and global cooperation.

We also reaffirmed the robust commitment and strong desire of both our government's to promote the future-oriented developments of our alliance. First of all, we share the view that over the last 60 years, the ROK-U.S. alliance has been effectively deterring North Korea's military threat, playing a vital role in supporting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia and evolving into the most-successful alliance relationship.

We also decided to actively pursue the development of a strategic ROK-U.S. alliance of the 21st century based on the joint vision agreed to by our two presidents in June 2009.

In addition both sides reaffirmed the robust security commitment and firm readiness posture of our two countries. We were also briefed on the progress being made in the consultations between our defense authorities, for implementing the adjustment of the timing of wartime OPCON transition, pursuant to the agreement by our two leaders several weeks ago. And it directed that a final plan be produced by the ROK-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting this October.

With regard to the Cheonan incident, we concur that such armed provocation by North Korea poses serious threats to peace and stability, on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, and that the U.N. Security Council presidential statement was highly significant in that it represented the unified voice of the international community, in condemning North Korea's attack, and stressed the importance of preventing further provocations and welcomed the close ROK-U.S. coordination.

Furthermore we were in full accord that North Korea should accept stern international demands for it to take responsibility and refrain from engaging in further provocations and that otherwise there would be serious consequences.

Also we approved a plan for holding a series of combined ROK-U.S. military exercises including combined naval and other exercises, which was officially announced at yesterday's defense ministers meeting.

In particular we made it clear that these exercises are aimed at deterring war and maintaining peace on the peninsula and decided to ensure they unmistakably demonstrate the firmness of the ROK, U.S. alliance in the face of North Korea's military provocation. In addition, both sides acknowledged the close bilateral cooperation regarding the North Korean nuclear issue and urged North Korea to carry out the complete and verifiable abandonment of all its nuclear programs in pursuit of nuclear weapons and demonstrate through concrete actions it's genuine will to denuclearize.

Moreover, during today's consultations, both sides concurred that the ROK, U.S. alliance is emerging as a global partnership contributing to addressing regional and global challenges beyond the Korean peninsula and acknowledged our close bilateral cooperation on reconstruction and stabilization in such places as Afghanistan and Haiti as well as with regard to the G-20 summit and the security summit.

What is more, the two sides pledged to work actively together towards ratification of the KORUS FTA based on the strong commitment and decision of our two leaders at the joint meeting in Toronto.

Lastly, both sides noted that today's meeting was very productive and useful in furthering the development of the strategic ROK, U.S. alliance, and decided to consider holding further foreign and defense ministers meetings as necessary. We also agreed to continue strengthening policy cooperation and coordination for ROK, US foreign and defense officials meetings at the deputy minister, assistant secretary level.

SEC. CLINTON: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be in Seoul again for the first ever two-plus-two meeting between Korea and the United States. I'd like to thank Foreign Minister Yu and Defense Minister Kim for their hospitality and the substantive discussions.

Secretary Gates and I are here in part to mark the 60th anniversary of the start of the Korean War. This morning we visited the DMZ and the war memorial, powerful reminders of our shared history. The people of South Korea and the United States have stood together for six decades, through the struggle of war and an uneasy peace, through a transition to democracy and open markets that have transformed life -- (off mike).

A cornerstone of our alliance is our commitment to South Korea's security and sovereignty, which we have demonstrated in the face of North Korea's latest provocation. We have consulted closely throughout this process and worked together to secure a unanimous United Nations Security Council statement condemning the sinking of the Cheonan. And today I'm announcing a series of measures to increase our ability to prevent North Korea's proliferation, to halt their illicit activities that help fund their weapons programs and discourage further provocative actions.

First, we will implement new country-specific sanctions aimed at North Korea's sale and procurement of arms and related materiel and the procurement of luxury goods and other illicit activities. These new measures will strengthen our enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874, and they also provide new authorities to target illicit North Korean activities.

In addition to these new measures, we will expand and strengthen our work under existing authority to identify, pressure, and put out of business North Korean entities involved in proliferation and other illicit practices overseas.

This intensified effort includes, among others, additional State and Treasury designations of entities and individuals supporting proliferation, and subjecting them to an asset freeze; new effort from key governments to stop the DPRK trading companies engaged in illicit activities from operating in countries and prevent the banks of other countries from facilitating these illicit transactions; expanded cooperation globally to prevent the travel of individuals designated under Security Council resolutions as well as other key North Korean proliferators; greater emphasis on North Korea's repeated abuse of its diplomatic privileges in order to engage in activities banned by the Security Council; and finally, we will press countries not to purchase banned items from North Korea or to sell North Korea proliferation-related goods.

All of this builds on our efforts to enforce vigorously resolutions 1718 and 1874 and our cooperation through the Proliferation Security Initiative. My special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, Robert Einhorn, will coordinate U.S. efforts and will travel to the region soon to consult on sanctions implementations with South Korea and other allies and partners.

Let me stress that these measures are not directed at the people of North Korea, who have suffered too long due to the misguided and maligned priorities of their government. They are directed at the destabilizing, illicit and provocative policies pursued by that government.

From the beginning of the Obama administration, we have made clear that there is a path open to the DPRK to achieve the security and international respect it seeks. North Korea can halt its provocative behavior, its threats and belligerence toward its neighbors, take irreversible steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law. And if North Korea chooses that path, sanctions will be lifted, energy and other economic assistance will be provided, its relations with the United States will be normalized, and the current armistice on the Peninsula will be replaced by a permanent peace agreement.

But as long as the North Korean leadership takes a different choice, continuing defiance, provocation and belligerence, it will continue to suffer the consequences.

Secretary Gates and I had a good talk on a range of other issues with the foreign minister and defense minister. I will leave it to Secretary Gates to discuss our ongoing military-to-military cooperation and other related matters, including our agreement to transfer operational control for alliance activities in 2015.

But I want to emphasize that every step we take, every diplomatic effort and joint military exercise, is aimed at strengthening our alliance, upholding our commitments and promoting peace, stability and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula, across the region and, increasingly, around the world.

I applaud South Korea's contributions to peacekeeping operations in Lebanon and its efforts in Afghanistan, its generous support for the people of Haiti, its commitment to triple official development assistance by 2015 and its upcoming role as host of the G-20 later this year and the Nuclear Security Summit in 2012.

South Korea is a responsible and dynamic partner on the world stage, helping to solve shared problems and promoting broader security and prosperity. This is a testament to President Lee's plan for a global Korea and to the 2009 joint vision statement put out by both President Obama and President Lee.

We also reaffirmed a central pillar of our relationship: our commitment to the KORUS Free Trade Agreement. This agreement will benefit the people of both our countries, boosting commerce, growing our economies, creating good-paying jobs.

We are working to resolve the outstanding issues, including leveling the playing field for U.S. workers and producers in key sectors of autos and beef, and we expect intensive discussions in the months ahead.

South Korea is already America's seventh-largest trading partner, with two-way trade in goods alone reaching nearly $70 billion last year. And we believe this is only the beginning of our shared economic potential. As President Obama said at the G-20 recently, we are committed to getting the free trade agreement passed.

So again, let me thank our hosts, and I look forward to continuing our work in the days and months ahead.

MODERATOR: (Through interpreter.) Next we will open up the floor to journalists to get three questions each from the Korean side and the U.S. side.

Q (Through interpreter.) First, my question is for Minister Yu. I read the joint statement, and I assume that you must have had in-depth discussions during the actual meeting. The focus, I believe, is perhaps finalizing positions on future policies on North Korea on the part of both the ROK and U.S. Some say that today's meeting should serve as the occasion to start reviewing an exit strategy on the Cheonan incident by way of the six-party talks. Others say that it is too early.

I believe that in the long run, a review on an exit strategy is the right way to go. To what extent has this topic been addressed during the meeting?

More specifically, if the Cheonan incident is seen to be settled for the time being with a UNSC presidential statement, how much longer do you think the pressure measures against North Korea, announced on the -- on May 24th, will go on?

MIN. YU: Yes. During the two-plus-two ministers' meeting on the aftermath of the Cheonan incident, we talked about policy coordination between ROK and the U.S.

With regard to the Cheonan incident specifically, we urge North Korea to quickly admit to responsibility and offer an apology, and also promise to prevent further similar provocations from occurring, and we will coordinate all efforts to that end.

North Korea to date has been saying that it will not come to the six-party talks table. So discussing that topic and talking about denuclearization at the six-party talks should come after the peace agreement, as requested by North Korea. And we need to discuss on a playing field.

And they also asked us to eliminate U.N. Resolutions 1718 and 1874, and North Korea has made other series of requests.

And some out there talk about an exit strategy with regard to the Cheonan incident, but our view is that it is not a ripe time for such an exit strategy at this time.

And another point is that at the UNSC presently, we are coordinating efforts between the ROK and the U.S., and as a result of that effort, the presidential statement has been released. And the ROK-U.S. joint civilian-military investigation group has identified that North Korea played a part in the Cheonan incident, and the statement strongly condemns the provocations of the North Korea.

So to put that into context, and we have the May 24th measures announced by the Korean government, and our North Korea policies should continue on that front.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: (Through interpreter.) Next question comes from Mr. Andrew Quinn from the Reuters.

Q (Off mike.) And is this a return to the strategy that we saw before, such as targeting Banco Delta Asia, where we're really trying to hit North Korea in the pocketbook? Thank you.

SEC. CLINTON: We have a three-part strategy for dealing with North Korea. We are intensively engaged in diplomatic efforts with our allies and partners, like the Republic of Korea, and all of the other members of the six-party framework, as well as the United Nations through the Security Council. And the results of those efforts in the last 18 months have led to Resolution 1874, which are the toughest general set of sanctions that have been imposed on North Korea, which we think has had an effect.

Secondly, we engage in strengthening our alliance with South Korea and our efforts at deterrence, which will be evidenced by the military exercises in the coming weeks. The very clear message that the United States stands to defend the security and sovereignty of South Korea is unmistakable.

And then finally, we are aiming very specifically -- after much intensive research, built on what was done before, but not limited to that -- to target the leadership, to target their assets. As you recall, several years ago we did get some action from the North Koreans as a result of the steps that were taken at that time. And intensive efforts by the State Department and Treasury Department to identify the activities and the individuals who we think deserve such sanctioning and who themselves are either part of the leadership or can influence leadership is what is contained in this next set of pressures.

MODERATOR: (Through interpreter.) Second question from the Korean side comes from Mr. Yohamdu from NBC.

Q (Through interpreter.) I have two questions directed to Secretary Clinton. I understand that both the ROK and U.S. are of the position that we must reverify North Korea's will to denuclearize before resuming the six-party talks. But there seems to be confusion arising from this. For example, if North Korea as early as tomorrow comes out and says that it will come to the six-party talks to discuss denuclearization with no preconditions, could the talks actually take place?

And also, can the talks resume even without an apology from North Korea or actions for punishment against the culprit with regard to the Cheonan incident? What does North Korea actually have to do for the six-party talks to resume?

And another question. You talked about the U.N. Resolutions 1718 and 1874 and the need to strengthen these resolution provisions. I have a question concerning the conditions and the term of these provisions, whether to suspend them or to ease them. Would that depend on the apologies or the punishment on the culprits? The provisions of 1718 and 1874, are all of the measures be applied on an equal level?

SEC. CLINTON: Well, your question about what does the DPRK have to do is truly the right question. And we think they know the answer; they just refuse to actually do it. They know very well that they made commitments over the last years to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which they have reneged on and which we expect them to once again adhere to. We are looking for the irreversible denuclearization.

We saw steps taken by North Korea which, as you know, they then decided to reverse. And it's our position that we're seeking irreversible steps.

Secondly, the idea of returning to the six-party talks, as Minister Yu pointed out, is not something we are looking at yet, because we do expect to see North Korea take certain steps that would acknowledge their responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan, which would demonstrate their commitment to the irreversible denuclearization of the peninsula, which would end the provocative and belligerent actions.

Now, we will consult closely with South Korea and the other partners in the six-party talks. And of course, if we all concluded that there was a very promising effort that could be undertaken because of signals that North Korea sent, we would give that serious consideration. But to date we have seen nothing that gives us any reason to believe that North Korea is ready to end its provocative, belligerent behaviors, to take the irreversible steps that they clearly know about because they previously committed to doing so, and to remedy the actions that they have taken against South Korea with the attack on the Cheonan.

MODERATOR: Next we will invite Mr. Dan De Luce from AFP for the next question.

Q First part of the question for Mr. Gates, and then the second part for all of you.

The man nominated to be the next U.S. director of National Intelligence, that you have endorsed, Mr. Clapper, spoke about his concerns about that we may be seeing the beginning of a new wave of attacks from North Korea. And do you agree with that assessment? And if so, why?

And then for all of you, as far as these planned military exercises, what leads you to be -- to hope that this will actually deter North Korea and not possibly actually provoke or raise tensions or create further problems?

SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, I would say that there has been some indication over the last number of months that, as a succession process gets under way in the North, that there might be provocations, and particularly since the sinking of the Cheonan. So I think it is something that we have to look at very closely. We have to keep it in mind and be very vigilant.

By the same token, I think taking steps that further strengthen deterrence and also demonstrate our determination not to be intimidated are very important. And yesterday we briefed in some detail on the first exercise that will take place, beginning in a week or so. And we have recommitted to the fact that we will continue these bilateral exercises and we will -- we will conduct them both in the East Sea and in the West Sea.

And so I think that we have to -- there is certainly no certainty about further provocations. I think that General Clapper was just warming up for his new job, assuming that he's confirmed by the Senate. But I think it is an important point, and it's something we have to be on the lookout for, to be vigilant, but also to be strong, and frankly, I think, sending the signal of unity that this two-plus-two meeting sends. That we -- that this is a very strong and a very close alliance and that we will act together going forward is an important message, I hope, in deterring future provocations.

MODERATOR: Next we will have a question from Mr. Sung Seou-li from NBN .

Q (Through interpreter.) This question goes to the -- Defense Minister Kim. Actually, during the SCM this October, I understand that your plan for adjusting the timing of the wartime OPCON transition will be finalized. So can you tell us the broad framework for that plan? And then what are the complementary needs that you have identified so far?

And also, what do you think about the possibility of a contingency within North Korea due to the internal issues, such as the deteriorating health of Kim Jong Il? And due to the economic issues, such as the financial crisis, I understand that there is a pressure within the U.S. to reduce the military spending. Doesn't that impact the outlook of U.S. alliance? And I also understand that there is a view that you need to increase the military spending. How -- what is your comments on this?

MIN. KIM: Now, let me answer that question first.

Yes, at the SCM meeting scheduled for October this year, we will further finalize detailed plans regarding the adjustment and the timing of the wartime OPCON. The progress so far has been focused on the OPCON transition initially slated for 2012 but has been postponed to 2015. So we are not just extending the period for -- of the transition by three years, but also, in the process of maintaining strong ally relationship between the two countries, we would like to complement any areas for further improvement.

And we are trying to fill in those nooks and crannies for further improvement to strengthen the alliance. So we will further discuss some important items and continue to consult to further evolve our alliance, and detailed discussions will take place to finalize a new plan by October in the next SCM meeting to come up with a broad picture of the future.

Regard to the North Korean contingency possibility, we are always closely keeping an eye on North Korea and like -- as you concur with us, there's always a possibility of a North Korean contingency, for sure, but there are no clear-cut signs of one at this point. But the possibility for one to come is quite high, and on that front, the ROK and U.S. is closely coordinating policies and improved closer ties to deal with that.

SEC. GATES: Can I just say one thing to a point you raised about U.S. defense spending? Because I think it's an important point for our Korean -- South Korean allies. And let me be very clear. What the Obama administration is doing at this time with respect to American defense spending is not cutting defense spending but trying to sustain our force structure, our capabilities, our numbers and our future investments through a reallocation of money within the defense budget from overhead and administrative programs and weak programs to the -- to our forces.

And so in terms of our alliance, all of the efforts that we have under way at the Department of Defense are intended to keep the forces that we have as strong as possible and to make those forces stronger in the future with greater investment.

We see no pressures -- I see no pressures in the foreseeable future that would cause us in any way to reduce our capabilities or in any way weaken our military strength.

MODERATOR: (Name and affiliation inaudible.)

Q Hi. My first question is for Mrs. Clinton and related to Gates. Last month in China, you had a lot of discussions with the Chinese about North Korea, and we had the impression that the Chinese would be taking a tough position on the North Korea situation and possibly inviting Mr. Gates to Beijing. Are you disappointed with the Chinese position so far on North Korea? And what message will you be bringing to them in Hanoi in the -- at the regional forum?

And for Minister Yu, a lot -- a lot of the discussion today has been about North Korea's nuclear program, but South Korea's going to be beginning new negotiations with the U.S. on its civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. What is the status of negotiations? And do you see any problems coming to conclusion with the U.S. on South Korea's hopes to reprocess its own nuclear fuel? Thank you.

SEC. GATES: Let me -- let me begin, from the U.S. standpoint. First of all, I would have to say that -- and I would defer to Secretary Clinton on this, but I think it was important that China voted for the presidential statement at the U.N., thereby allowing a unanimous vote that everybody recognized was a condemnation of North Korea's provocation.

I continue to believe that an open and growing dialogue, military to military, between the United States and China, is in the best interests of both countries. President Yu -- Hu and President Obama agreed to this in their meeting last year.

Obviously we were disappointed that the Ministry of Defense postponed the visit, withdrew the invitation, however you want to characterize it. But I think we have to look to the future, and I would say that I remain open to rebuilding and strengthening the military-to-military dialogue between the United States and China, because I think it can play an important role in preventing miscalculations and misunderstandings.

And so I look forward to that. We'll see. We are obviously concerned by some of the things China has said, some of the things China's doing in the military arena. They are worrying but that's all the more reason to open this dialogue.

MIN. YU: (In Korean. No interpretation provided.)

MODERATOR: (Through interpreter.) This concludes the press availability meeting of the ROK-U.S. foreign and defense ministers' meeting. Thank you.

FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.

Presenter: Commander, NATO-ISAF Regional Command South British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter

July 21, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

DOD News Briefing with Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon

2010-07-22T08:05:04Z

DOD News Briefing with Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:45:00 -0500

Statement by British Maj. Gen. Carter from Afghanistan

[Maj. Gen. Carter's opening statement is provided without reporter questions and answers due to loss of teleconference signal from Afghanistan.]

GEN. CARTER: What I was proposing to do was to talk sort of 15 to 20 minutes, to give people a sense of what's going on, in Regional Command South and Kandahar in particular, and then obviously take questions thereafter.

The last time I did this I think was on about the 26th of May, so about eight weeks ago. And indeed a good deal has occurred since that date and during the last eight weeks.

Of course just to remind people, RC South now no longer owns Helmand and Nimroz. That's now RC Southwest, which has allowed us to focus our attention on Uruzgan, Zabul and Kandahar, which are the three key provinces in RC South. And of course, some interest in Daikundi, which is the province to the north up towards Kabul.

That means this command now is about 38,000-strong, a mixture of U.S., Canadian, Dutch, Australian, Romanian and British troops. Those are the main nations.

And what I'm going to do is just to give one a quick overview of the geography that I'm going to focus on. And I hope that you've got in front of you a diagram that shows the area around Kandahar.

In terms of the scale, we're talking about a map that is about 60 kilometers square. The city, which is halfway up on the right-hand side of the diagram, is around 10 kilometers square. The key feature on here, really, is the river Arghandab, which flows from the northeastern or top right-hand side of the diagram away to the southwest.

Now this river flows throughout the year, unlike many of the rivers in Afghanistan. And it does have significant irrigation that comes off it in terms of canals and ditches. And indeed, off the diagram, to the northeast, it is dammed -- some have called it the Dahla Dam -- which was a project initiated by the Tennessee Valley Authority back in the 1940s. And this project is a significant project, because what it has done is to really open up the sort of green space to left and to right of the river, and therefore it sustains a significant amount of population density.

The economy is clearly focused on agriculture, given the nature of all of that, and it's really about fruit. In the Arghandab valley, which is the northeastern part of the diagram, it's about orchards of pomegranates, predominately, but also apricots, peaches, nectarines, those sorts of things.

And to the south and southwest, we're talking about vineyards, with big -- with grapes -- not being grown as they might be in California off vines, but off earthen mounds, which makes the going very difficult if you're a military person.

Kandahar is also a key trading hub. It sits on Highway 1, which connects Kabul with Kandahar and then away to the west to Lashkar Gah and Herat. And of course it also has a highway that runs southeast out of Kandahar down to the Pakistani border at Spin Buldak. It's been a key trading hub forever, and really the idea of silk routes and all of that have all flowed through Kandahar. And therefore it is a significant place in terms of that sort of aspect of economics.

However, having said that, there's really been no major investment in the city since the late '70s. And what you find is a pretty typical Central Asian city, but it's one that is rapidly crumbling as a result of that lack of investment.

In terms of the population, in the diagram you see in front of you around a million people live, of which about 500,000 live in the city itself.

In terms of the sort of scale, I guess the nearest comparison I can think of is probably the city of San Diego, but of course -- (12-second audio break) -- environs of the city, particularly in Arghandab, to the north of the city, but also in those rural areas of Zari and Panjwayi in the center of the diagram, particularly in the space to the south of Highway 1 and to the north of the river, right in the center of the diagram, and also to the south of the river, between the Arghandab -- (11-second audio break) -- movement between the towns of Pashmul and west to Nalgham and then to the west of Panjwayi itself -- (20-second audio break) -- mafias, militias, reminiscent perhaps of Moscow in the 1990s or, if you will allow me to be impertinent for a moment, maybe Boston in the 1930s, where things are being driven really by protection rackets and extortion and that sort of background.

Now, to understand that, of course, you really need to go back in history to see why we've ended up with that sort of environment in Kandahar city and around it. And, of course, if you go back to the end of the Russian occupation, what happened at that point was that the traditional tribal aristocracy through which the size of -- (26-second audio break) -- filled by what I would describe as a personality-driven political order, where loyalties are not to the government or to institutions; they tend to be to individuals. And powerful individuals have therefore created these pyramids or networks of patronage, with loyalty stemming up that pyramid to the powerful figure at the top of it.

Now, of course, this problem is compounded by very weak governance. And what you find in the cities -- people may have heard me say before -- is a mayor whose office is small, it's understaffed; he is a one-man band to all intents and purposes, and trying to run a municipality -- (10-second audio break) -- Governor Wisa -- again, his capacity in governance terms is relatively weak, although it's growing on a daily basis, and I shall return to that.

Now, in terms of the way that we are approaching this problem, we see it really along four lines of operation. The goal of all of those lines of operation is ultimately -- (terminal audio break, ends in progress).

FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.

Presenter: Commanding General, U.S. Forces-Iraq Gen. Raymond Odierno

July 21, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Joint Statement by Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton at the DMZ, Panmunjom, Korea

2010-07-21T22:05:02Z

Joint Statement by Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton at the DMZ, Panmunjom, Korea
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:55:00 -0500

DOD News Briefing with Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon

MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming. And we'll make this brief, because you all know very well our guest speaker this morning. We're privileged to have once again with us General Ray Odierno.

General Odierno is the commanding general of U.S. Forces-Iraq. He took command of U.S. Forces-Iraq in September 2008, following his command of Multinational Corps Iraq.

As I said, he's no stranger to our briefing room. The last time he was here was on June 4th. So we're certainly grateful that he made time in his very busy schedule to come back here again.

Sir, with that, thank you again for taking your time, and over to you.

GEN. ODIERNO: I have a short opening statement. Then I'll open up to questions.

First, thanks for coming. Good morning.

The reason I'm back -- I'm back just for a few days; I got back last night, will leave this weekend -- is DOD and Department of State are hosting a transition conference as we walk through the challenges and to set the stage for the transition from a military-led to a civilian-led operation in Iraq.

If I could just -- first, I'd like to let you know that I continue to be extremely pleased with the performance of the Iraqi security forces. While we still see attempts by al Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist elements to create uncertainty and to deflate confidence in the government of Iraq, nationwide, security incidents remain at the lowest level since we've been keeping records. High- profile attacks during the first six (months) of 2010 have decreased by nearly 50 percent when compared to the first six months of 2009.

Clearly there's still some violence, and we still need to make more progress in Iraq. But Iraqi security forces have taken responsibility for security throughout Iraq, and they continue to grow and improve every day. They've demonstrated they are apolitical and loyal to the constitution during this period of transition, which is extremely important.

The continued progression of the security forces and their improved -- and the improved environment which has been achieved over the past several years inside of Iraq -- and that's come through our partnership with the increasingly professional security forces -- has enabled us to deliberately reduce our forces, in line with the president's guidance, all while simultaneously continuing to do our mission every single day.

Today, since the height of the surge back in 2007, we've closed or turned over nearly 500 bases. We have 16 more that we want to turn over prior to 1 September, and we are on schedule to do that. We have reduced our presence by 75,000 troops since January of 2009 and 32,000 since January 2010. Today we're approximately 70,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines present for duty in Iraq.

Since June of 2009, we've retrograded over 37,000 rolling stock, wheeled vehicles, and nearly 20,000 have gone to Afghanistan. Additionally, 1.2 million pieces of non-rolling stock have left the country. Our military footprint will continue to decline over the next five weeks, and we are on track to be at 50,000 boots on the ground by the start of Operation New Dawn on September 1st.

Our change of mission for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn will officially mark the end of combat operations and signify our transition to stability operations from a military sense. In truth, we've been conducting stability operations for several months. As the president has said and the vice president reiterated on his last trip to Iraq, the United States, though, remains committed to a stable, sovereign, self-reliant Iraq, and we are dedicated to sustaining a long-term bilateral relationship with Iraq.

Operation New Dawn does not change the level of U.S. commitment to Iraq. It changes the nature of our commitment: one that is military-dominated to a civilian-led commitment. As we transition to stability operations, U.S. forces will continue to train, advise, assist and equip Iraqi security forces and carry on with our partnered counterterrorism operations. We'll support the U.S. Embassy, provincial reconstruction teams, United Nations and other nongovernmental organizations dedicated to building Iraqi civil capacity.

The goal of this strategy is to help Iraq build strong, enduring, democratic institutions from rule of law to good governance and establish the foundation for long-term development.

Iraqi elections held in March were incredibly successful. The Iraqi people embraced the right to vote and choose. Challenges to the election process only further solidified the credibility and legitimacy of the election.

The outcome was very close. And this has led to complex negotiations between the major blocs. That said, political discussions and negotiations continue in earnest.

All blocs realize the importance of forming a government that is transparent, accountable and representative of the Iraqi people. And I believe they are working towards this end.

I think it's important to put the security and political environment in Iraq today in perspective, as it compares to where we were in 2006, 2008 and even 2009. There has been steady, deliberate progress across all lines. There's clearly more to do. But a new baseline has been established.

As I fly around Iraq on a daily basis, I see the streets and markets are thriving with activity whether in Baghdad, Basra and even in Mosul. There's a certain sense of normalcy.

Over the past 7-1/2 years, the Iraqi people have proven to be extremely resilient and courageous. They want to move forward and make their country better than it was before.

Political and economic progress is more important now than ever. That's why we believe this new stage in our relationship will help ensure that Iraq remains on a path to develop security, diplomatic and economic depth that will ultimately contribute to peace and stability in the region.

With that, I look forward to any questions you might have.

Q General, I wanted to go back to this issue of the Sons of Iraq. I mean, you mentioned this morning how important it is, how important they are to the movement there and progress there, and that you said it's our responsibility to protect them.

How do you do that when U.S. troops are no longer going to be allowed to involve in combat operations?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, I'm not sure I said it's our responsibility to protect them. What I said is we have a sense of responsibility because we've turned this program over to the Iraqi security forces. So what we will do, as we do every other operation now, working through our Iraqi security force partners, we will ensure that the Sons of Iraq program stays vibrant inside of Iraq.

The Iraqi government has dedicated $300 million to this so they can continue to be paid. We're overseeing the transition of the Iraqi security forces to other agencies. And that's the important part. And I always thought that this was an initial building block to reconciliation, and I think it's an important one. And I think that that's why it's important for us to maintain oversight, which is what we do now.

Q But would the Iraqi government be in a position to protect these Sons of Iraq in the future?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again, what they are, they are working with the Iraqi security forces. So the Sons of Iraq that are still conducting security operations are either working for an Iraqi army or Iraqi police unit, and they are responsible to continue to assist them and help them. And we monitor this very carefully, work very closely with our Iraqi security forces partners to ensure this happens.

Q Can I follow up on that? -- you have to make sure that you're going to provide -- continue to provide oversight. Practically speaking, what does that mean? If the Iraqi government decides to pull the plug or reduce their commitment to the Sons of Iraq, what levers does the U.S. have to pull?

GEN. ODIERNO: First, there are absolutely no signs that the government of Iraq is going to pull the plug on the Sons of Iraq. I mean, again, they have dedicated $300 million of their budget to pay them this year. They have -- I met with the minister of Defense two days ago and we had this discussion. They are dedicated to ensuring that they continue to work with the Iraqi security forces.

What's happening now is it's about them transitioning to other governmental jobs. And we're about halfway through that, we got half to go.

So it's important that we -- to continue along that progress.

And the prime minister made a statement -- after the latest -- there was an attack this weekend on Sons of Iraq. And he made a statement of how important the Sons of Iraq have been to bringing stability to Iraq and the critical role they played in 2006 and '7. And I think that's the general attitude.

And the reason they're vulnerable is because Al Qaeda in Iraq realizes this. And as they try to reestablish themselves based on the losses that they've had over the last several months, they are focusing on the Sons of Iraq, because they, in some cases, were once part of the insurgency. So they're trying to focus on them and attack their will. And that's why it's important that us, with the Iraqi security forces, pay extra attention now to make sure they understand that we are going to be there. And they have done that over the last few days, and we will continue to help them do that.

Q Sir, you have said lately that some special groups in Iraq backed by Iran continue to remain a threat to U.S. forces. Do you have any information if these groups are directly connected to the Iranian government?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, it's very difficult to say they're directly connected to the Iranian government. But what we do know is that many of them live in Iran, many of them get trained in Iran and many of them get weapons from Iran. And they get them from various sources, and it's difficult sometimes to track the exact chain of command; it's difficult to track the funding. But it's clearly being done inside of Iran.

We believe the Qods Force is involved in the training and funding of these groups, so obviously there's some connection. You know, this -- the Kata'ib Hezbollah specifically, we've had some significant threat warnings from them about attacks on U.S. forces for varying reasons. I think they also, by the way, have conducted attacks against Iraqi security forces as well, and this is to create, I believe, some type of instability and lack of confidence in the government of Iraq.

So it's an issue for everyone, not just U.S. forces. We've been working very closely with the Iraqi security forces to target these elements. And we've gotten great cooperation so far from them.

Q On another issue, we have seen yesterday the Syrian president meeting with Muqtada al-Sadr and Iyad Allawi. Do you think Syria has a key role in breaking the impasse now in Iraq?

GEN. ODIERNO: I think they play a role.

I -- one of the things frankly that I would like to see more of is, I really want Iraqis to solve this problem. And obviously Iraq's a very important and strategic country in the Middle East. So all the nations are concerned about what happens in Iraq.

So what I would like to see is just Iraqis stay in Iraq, negotiate, work towards solving the impasse that we have right now in forming the government. Obviously it's important to talk with other nations, get their views. But they should not be directly involved in solving this problem.

They should just support the process, pass their views and have discussions with Iraqi leaders. And I think that's what's happened in this case. And it happened to be that Muqtada al-Sadr and Allawi were together there, and they met.

I think that's important, that we start to have these meetings between these different leaders. I think it's good that that happened. They had a chance to discuss the issues.

Q General, this morning, you talked a little bit about perhaps considering a move back to nine-month deployments in the -- once you're down to 50,000 troops or in the period following, up to 17 months, while you're still in Iraq.

Could you talk a little bit more about the thinking that -- behind that concept and when you might be thinking about possibly implementing that and whether that would affect all forces?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I've asked my staff to look at it, and they're looking at it now. And the reason we're looking at it is for a number of reasons. First, I think nine months would be reasonable. Secondly does it fit as we -- as we draw down to zero by 2011?

Would it be better to have a nine-month deployment than a 12- month deployment, to meter how we want to remove our forces?

So that's the focus. So I've asked them to go take a look at it, come back, and we'll work with the joint staff and the Army as we look at these issues. And if we can do it, we'll move to it.

Q Is this just with the army deployments and not IAs as well, individual augmentees?

GEN. ODIERNO: This is -- we're talking about unit deployments here, not -- I think individual augmentees will probably stay at 12 months.

Q Figured -- just, follow, then: Is there -- do you see a point at which the deployments of units to Iraq would end, I mean, without any additional fresh forces coming --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, that's happening now. That's been happening. I mean, that's how we're reducing the size of our force. And we will -- you know, we continue to do that. I mean, what's happened over the last, you know, six to eight months is we have -- we've made very specific decisions on which forces would be backfilled and which ones weren't, which capabilities would be backfilled. For example, we've reduced some capabilities. We've made that consciously as we've moved down to this 50,000-size force. And that's exactly what's happened. And so then they go back into the force pool and are available for other missions around the world.

Q What month will we see the last troops being deployed to Iraq?

GEN. ODIERNO: Unclear yet. Unclear.

Q I want to go back to the transition from combat to stability and explain a little bit about what that means. I remember, when the first BCT was announced, it was going to be an AAB.

GEN. ODIERNO: Right.

Q If it's the same troops and the same kind of activities, then this --

GEN. ODIERNO: We're training -- yeah, sure --

Q I'm thinking of your -- sorry -- your comment this morning where you said that there are no more combat patrols happening.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. Yeah.

Q But, you know, our reporters, we see -- we see troops on patrol -- is it -- that's not a combat patrol; what do you -- what do you mean?

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, first -- I mean, what we do, first, is everything we do is -- are -- again, a combat patrol is when you go -- I mean, my definition for combat patrol is you're going out for a very specific mission to go after a very specific target or to go and influence some sort of an operation that's ongoing inside the country. We don't do those.

What we do do is we have advisers that go with Iraqi security force units that go out, or we have logistics patrols that are -- that are out there to provide and support our forces.

So the majority of our forces are embedded inside of Iraqi security forces as advisers only, and that's how we move -- and we've been operating like that for quite some time. So this is not something -- you know, I would say for the last four or five months that's basically what we've been doing.

The only exception to that is in the disputed areas, where we have a tripartite security architecture where everybody's agreed that we'll do a -- and this -- I would call -- this is not really combat, this is more conflict prevention kind of things that we're doing up in the disputed areas, where we have Kurds, Iraqi peshmerga, Iraqi army and U.S. forces on checkpoints. That would be the only thing that would be close to -- be considered combat. But I really consider it conflict prevention, not combat, although, you know, I remind everyone that as we moved away from combat operations, the enemy has not -- some of these insurgents groups have not declared the end of combat operations. So we always have to be prepared to defend ourselves, and we will always be prepared to defend ourselves, and we'll be very active in defending ourselves.

Q General, with the delay in forming a new government, have you given serious thought to perhaps asking the chain of command to slightly delay the drawdown to 50,000? If not, is it because you think that this headline is important for the Iraqis to see?

GEN. ODIERNO: I think -- there's a couple reasons. First, I have not. I went through -- I had decision points I went through during the year, and I've decided that I believe it's in the best interests of our mission that we don't -- we don't keep above 50,000 beyond 1 September. First I think -- couple things:

The Iraqi security forces are capable for handling the level of security that's necessary.

Secondly, I believe 50,000's still a lot of capability. And so it's not like we don't have any -- we still have capability on the ground that if we have to and the Iraqis want us to, we can help them.

Thirdly, I think it's important we live up to our commitment. It's important to them that they see that there is progress being made, we're recognizing that progress, and that they see that the U.S. is true to their word. And I think that's important. We noticed that on the 30 June 2009 -- (inaudible) -- this lesson, when we came out of the cities. When we -- most people didn't think we were going to really come out of the cities. When we did, it made a real difference psychologically on the ground, and I think it's important that we do that.

There comes a time, in my opinion, when it becomes counterproductive. I'm not saying it's counterproductive we have U.S. troops in Iraq, but I think it's counterproductive for us to be doing combat operations in Iraq. I think it's time for them to do those. So what we're trying to do is get them ready to do this, and I think that's where we're at now in the different phases of the operation that we've been through.

Jim.

Q General, along that line, you said that counterterrorism operations would continue.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q From a practical standpoint, what does that entail? Would it include kinetic or combat operations? And can the U.S. do that independently or would it be in partnership with the Iraqis? How does that work?

GEN. ODIERNO: First off, we do no independent operations in Iraq. We have not done it for several months. To the highest level of our most covert counterterrorism operations are all coordinated and all joint with -- partnered with Iraqi security forces. So that -- Iraqi special operations forces. So that will continue.

You know, it's like we do in other places. We are working with them to develop intelligence, to develop targets, and then we -- it goes through the Iraqi chain of command for approval, and once they approve it, we then execute -- we help them to execute the targets.

We -- over the next 17 months, one of the things we have to do is continue to build their counterterrorism capacity. And we will continue to do that so when we leave in 2011, they have the ability to continue this. And they've made a lot of progress, but we still want to help them to make more. So we will do partnered operations in those contexts.

Q Again, from a practical standpoint, would those partnered operations include U.S. combat forces that would be --

GEN. ODIERNO: Yes.

Q -- (inaudible).

GEN. ODIERNO: Yes.

Q Okay.

GEN. ODIERNO: Sir.

Q As you withdraw from Iraq, are you -- are you shifting any arms and equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan? And how are you doing that?

GEN. ODIERNO: We've moved about 20,000 vehicles from Iraq to Afghanistan. It's already done. They've already been moved. We've moved many other items as well, and that's gone very smoothly.

And you know, we continue to move some enablers over there but for the most part, it's finished. We've moved -- we've identified everything that we no longer needed. It's been moved over to Afghanistan already.

So that part of it's really basically complete. And so what leaves now will go back to the United States for the most part.

Q And move to Pakistan?

GEN. ODIERNO: You'd have to talk to TRANSCOM about that. You know, I don't know. I don't track that. My job is to move it out of Iraq, and that's what we do. And we turn it over to TRANSCOM and others to do that.

Yes, ma'am.

Q On the transition to the State Department, can you say what responsibilities that are currently DOD responsibilities would be transferred to State and when?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, we've done -- there's 1,000 -- we've identified over 1,000 tasks that USF-I currently does. And we have binned them into different categories, three basically -- four actually.

One, some will -- I'm not going to tell you – I don't have them off the top of my head, but some will be transitioned to the government of Iraq. Secondly they'll be transitioned to the interagency that's left behind, run by the embassy. Third, some will transition to CENTCOM, who will continue to have engagement obviously with Iraq after our departure. And fourth, we'll stop doing it, either because we have completed the task or it's no longer necessary.

So we've binned them in those four. And that's part of the discussion we'll have over the next few days, is to go through those and go through how we will transition those.

We have gone through in detail in Iraq, between the U.S. embassy and USF-I, and we work it almost on a daily basis to continue to work through these issues.

So the important thing is, we've identified and we binned them, and now it's about how we actually get them transitioned. We've transitioned some already. But it will -- that's what will happen over the next 17 months.

Q Do you have any particular concerns about any specific tasks --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I mean, I would say one is -- actually I mentioned is the counterterrorism task. I think -- I think that's one that we have to -- I feel comfortable we're heading in the right direction. I just want -- it's such an important task. I want to make sure that we turn that over to the government of Iraq properly. I think that's one.

In terms of the State Department, the most difficult one obviously is the police training. But they -- we have -- we're working with them every single day on this. We have to get certain things done at a lower level because when they take it over, they'll be working at a different level. And as I mentioned this morning, is -- NATO, I think, will play a role in this as well. The Carabinieri out of -- the Italian Carabinieri is there now, are playing a huge role in training the federal police. There's a potential that the NATO training mission would extend beyond 2011. It's a very -- it's about 3(00) or 400 people, only I think Iraq's interest's in that because of the exposure to the international community and NATO itself. So I think that's a good potential -- so those are things that we have to work as we move forward.

Q You talked before about Iranian influence, but about AQ and AQI, do you see AQI having any reachback at this point or any connection sort of back to AQ central and that whole connection that existed for so many years? Or has AQ central sort of along the Pakistan region kind of washed their hands of these guys and said, "You're done"?

GEN. ODIERNO: I wouldn't say they've washed their hands of them, but I will tell you that with the killing of AAM (Abu Ayyub al-Masri) and AUAB (Abu Umar al-Baghdadi), the lines have been cut.

My guess is they'll try to reestablish those over time. But it's unclear how they're going to do that. We watch that very carefully, obviously.

Q You talked earlier about, you know, AQI trying to destabilize the Sons of Iraq and all that. AQI at this point you see being sort of self-contained inside of Iraq.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yes, it is. Yes. And in fact it's changed -- it's changed dramatically. We've broken their centralized control. It's very difficult for them to even communicate internally to each other in Iraq, but we have decentralized cells in certain areas who are kind of carrying on the last orders. You know, since we picked up so much of the senior leadership, they're kind of carrying on some orders they had worked on several months ago and they're trying to continue to do that.

And they're trying to regenerate. But they're having trouble recruiting because the people of Iraq for the most part have rejected al Qaeda's ideology. And so what they're trying to do is they're trying to grasp on -- they try to go after ex-detainees, they try to go after those who at one time might have been associated with them, because they're having trouble regenerating themselves. And so that's why we're watching that very carefully and want to make sure it doesn't happen.

Q Can I ask you to reflect a little bit? I mean, you're one of the few that was there at the very beginning, at the middle, when it was at its worst, and now which by any description is the end phase for U.S. forces. It has to be a remarkable thing for you to have observed this.

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I think it's been -- it's been a very up- and-down experience, as we all know. But what I -- one of the things that's been most gratifying to me has been the performance of our forces, how our forces have adapted and learned, how our leaders have adapted and learned and adjusted to very difficult situations. And I'm pretty proud of that, of the young men and women who've been able to do that.

You know, this is still a very complex place. And I've said before, we're not going to be sure of the outcome for, you know, three to five to 10 years, because I believe it's -- it will be based politically, and it will be based on political and economic decisions that they make.

But I would say, back in 2006, very few people would have said we'd be where we are today in Iraq. And that's somewhat gratifying, that we've been able to move it forward as far as we can.

Q So my last question is, although Afghanistan is not in your bailiwick, you have seen the entire continuum of a war. And as a four-star general, when you look at Afghanistan, can any of the things you've learned in Iraq work there?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q Is there something? Because people see Afghanistan and they see a very troubled situation.

GEN. ODIERNO: A couple -- a couple of things. Again, I never -- I'm not an expert in Afghanistan, and I've said this many times. I spent a lot of time in Iraq.

But there are things that are transferable. One is about, when you tackle a problem, you have to understand the environment itself, and you have to understand the political, economic, cultural, tribal, however it happens to shape the situation. And then you have to take what you have available to you, the lethal and nonlethal means.

And you -- and if you do it right, you have to understand why something is happening. And what we've learned is, you have to go -- once you figure out why it's happening, then you have to figure out: What's the best solution: lethal, nonlethal? And then you've got to go after it in that way.

And I think we can apply that in Afghanistan. I think General Petraeus will apply that in Afghanistan. I think General McChrsytal was starting to apply that in Afghanistan. Because it's never the same solution. That's one of the big lessons learned that I've had over the time in Iraq, is that you have to really understand why something is happening, then you understand whether it's got to be a lethal solution or a nonlethal solution or a combination of both in order to get the results that we want.

And ultimately what you need is, you need the population to believe that they will be protected against these elements, so they can then get confidence in the government and confidence in providing information, in order for stability to be brought back.

And how you do that in Afghanistan is probably different than how you do it in Iraq. But the way you go about it in doing the assessment is the same. I think that's what they're going through now, as we get more troops in there and more headquarters.

Headquarters are important. Headquarters make a real difference. That gives you the intellectual capacity to understand the why whether it's a battalion, a brigade or a division-level headquarters. And I think as we get more of those into Afghanistan, I think it will make a difference.

MODERATOR: Last question.

GEN. ODIERNO: I'll do two more.

Q Can you talk a little bit about airpower in Iraq? Are you seeing any kinetic strikes still at this point?

GEN. ODIERNO: I track it very carefully. We have not done a kinetic strike in at least six months. It might even be longer than that. It might -- I think it's even longer than that.

But it's been a very long time. I track every one of them, and they brief me weekly on that. We don't need to do that anymore. In fact, there's been very few helicopter engagements in a very long time.

So, and again it's the nature of the shape of the fight. We don't have to use that anymore. It's 2007, we had to do that in order to get control back. But now that we've gotten control back, you don't need to use that kind of capability.

So, and it's important, because what we don't want to do is alienate people with collateral damage. And we know collateral damage in an asymmetric fight is extremely important.

And so we haven't done it. But we have many other uses for airpower. It's a great reconnaissance -- you know, we use it. You know, we can use it to -- for deterrence. So it still plays a role but one that's much different.

Tony.

Q I have a question about the State Department's request, from Patrick Kennedy back in April, for an -- they said it's an unprecedented level of support they're going to need to meet the challenge.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah.

Q They asked for choppers, like 24 UA-60s, 50 MRAPs. Where does this request stand?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, Tony, you really need to talk to State. But we're working our way through that. It's -- I think we'll probably talk about that a little bit this week. First you got to decide -- you know, finalize what we want to do over there. State Department's got to define what they want to -- how much freedom of movement they want to have.

And of course, it's always about protecting, you know, our people out there, and is it -- you know, what is going to be the end state? So I think we still have some discussion to go on that. And I think we have to -- you know, it could change over time, based on the security environment changing as well. Maybe they won't need all that. But I think initially they decided, we better go in for what -- the worst case, based on, you know, what we think could be the worst- case scenario. But we'll sort through that as we move forward.

Q Now, they did ask for LOGCAP IV (Logistics Capability IV) continuation. I asked you to -- briefly at this breakfast this morning.

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. Yeah.

Q But they made a fairly strong plea that they need this contract, as obscure as it is outside of Iraq, to continue under Army auspices. Can you address that at all from the podium?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, we -- again, we have to -- we have to work with -- we made a decision to stay with LOGCAP III this year --

Q Right.

GEN. ODIERNO: -- and that was based on the fact not that we didn't want to recompete it but that it would have caused us to transition LOGCAP during this time of reducing our forces. So it's going to have to be recompeted at the end of -- in 2011. And I think at that time there will have to be a decision made on who's responsible for running the contract.

Q State or DOD?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Members of Congress were expressing some concern yesterday at the confirmation hearing for the prospective new ambassador for -- to Iraq about security and especially in light of the delay in forming a new government. They were very concerned that this would raise the costs and the risks of the transition, and they were wondering how long this might take. Can you take another shot at what you see happening and how much --

GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I --

Q -- how much concern should there be about this?

GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah. I think, first off, there's uneasiness in Iraq because of how long it's taking. But there has not been any degradation in security and stability. So there's uneasiness by the Iraqi people. They'd like to see a government formed. I think everybody's ready to see a government formed.

But I would say the government is going to be formed. They will get there. Whether it happens next week or two months from now I don't know yet. As I said earlier, it's very complex negotiations that are going on because of the closeness of the election. You know, I would argue this is one of the closest elections we've probably ever seen in the Middle East. And I think that says a lot for -- that the people had -- you know, clearly were able to express their views on who they think should help to run the government in the future.

But now they have to work through this as they build through the parliamentary system coalition. And there are some -- there are some very tough issues they have to work through. The important part is that they have discussions, they have them peacefully, and they want to form a government that's representative of the entire population and the vote itself. And I think that's why it's taking longer, because it's not an easy solution.

So I would be concerned if there's not a government formed by October or so; I would start to have some concern. I'm hoping it gets formed by August. There's still much -- there's still a potential for it to be formed before Ramadan. But we'll have to wait and see. And I think we just have to continue to watch it very carefully.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

July 21, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Remarks by Secretary Gates at Camp Casey, South Korea

2010-07-21T09:05:02Z

Remarks by Secretary Gates at Camp Casey, South Korea
Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:44:00 -0500

Joint Statement by Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton at the DMZ, Panmunjom, Korea

SEC. GATES: This is my third visit to the demilitarized zone and the observation tower. Looking out across the DMZ, it is stunning how little has changed up there and yet how much South Korea continues to grow and prosper. The North, by contrast, stagnates in isolation and deprivation. And as we saw with the sinking of the Cheonan, it continues its history of unpredictable and, at times, provocative behavior.

So we are here today not just to show our appreciation for the vital work U.S., ROK, and other forces do maintaining the armistice, but, also, to send a strong signal to the North, to the region, and to the world that our commitment to South Korea's security is steadfast. In fact, our military alliance has never been stronger and it should deter any potential aggressor.

SEC. CLINTON: This is my first visit to the DMZ, to Freedom House, to the UN Armistice Headquarters.

And as we were at the Observation Post looking out at what is a thin, 3-mile separation between the North and the South, it struck me that although it may be a thin line, these two places are worlds apart.

The Republic of Korea has made extraordinary progress. It has leaders who care about he well-being of the people. It has an economy that is growing and creating jobs and opportunities. It has a commitment to common values of democracy and freedom.

By contrast, the North has not only stagnated in isolation, but the people of the North have suffered for so many years.

I am grateful to the men and women from the Republic of Korea, the United States of America and the multinational force, who today are standing watch for freedom and who are in a long line of those who came before over the last six decades, who have helped to protect South Korea.

At the same time we continue to send a message to the North. There is another way. There is a way that can benefit the people of the North.

But until they change direction, the United States stands firmly on behalf of the people and government of the Republic of Korea, where we provide a stalwart defense along with our allies and partners.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

July 20, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Remarks by Secretary Gates at Camp Casey, South Korea

2010-07-21T08:05:02Z

Remarks by Secretary Gates at Camp Casey, South Korea
Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:44:00 -0500

Remarks by Secretary Gates at Camp Casey, South Korea

(Applause.)

SEC. GATES: I promise to be very brief because what I'd like to do is take a few questions. I might or might not be able to answer them, but you can ask them. And then the main thing I want to do when we're done here is thank each and every one of you personally, shake your hand, give photographs, give you a coin, just tell you how much I appreciate you and your families for supporting you here. I thank you for coming, but I suspect that not all of you are volunteers here, so anyway, thanks for being out here.

I always look forward to getting out of Washington. In fact, any good day is a day out of Washington. And simply to come here and say thanks and again, I know that your families are sacrificing with you being so far away as well.

I'm back in Korea again this week for a unique event. A few months ago, President Obama and President Lee agreed for the first time to have a meeting here in Seoul, in Seoul of the two countries' foreign ministers and defense ministers. And so we will have the first Two-plus-Two meeting tomorrow, dealing with a whole range of issues affecting our relationship and figuring out how to take this relationship further in the future.

We'll cover a bunch of issues, including how to implement the recent decision to adjust OPCON transition to 2015, what we know will call "strategic alliance 2015." We were scheduled to transfer in April of 2012, but at the request of the Korean government, we agreed to slide the date to 2015 and also make the relationship more robust in terms of exercises, command and control, capabilities, and so on.

I continue to believe that the Koreans are fully capable and a professional military ready to lead the combined defense. But I think this additional time will allow us to make the eventual transfer more wide-ranging and more synchronized and ultimately better for the alliance.

Although these changes and meetings were scheduled long before the Cheonan tragedy, that attack and our collective efforts to prevent another one will certainly also be a part of our bilateral discussions this week. And in fact, I'll go from here to a meeting in Seoul with Defense Minister Kim, where we will continue our close coordination on a series of military exercises that we've scheduled over the next several months. These exercises, above all in the East and West seas - what we would call Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea - some of you may well be participating in and are designed to enhance our interoperability and readiness. But it's also a strong sign of deterrence or signal of deterrence to the North.

And then tomorrow, Secretary Clinton and I, along with our Korean counterparts, will visit the DMZ to highlight how important operations are there to the security of the peninsula as well as the region, and demonstrate our steadfast commitment to the ROK.

As you probably know, this year marks the 60th anniversary of the ROK-U.S. relationship. The incredible prosperity, freedom, and vitality you see outside the gates of this camp and throughout the South are the result of a steep price paid in blood and treasure by both the United States and Korea and our other allies.

And although you're far from home and not as much in the headline as what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, I just want you to know we do appreciate your sacrifice here, but also to tell you your vigilance is exceptionally important in one of the most volatile parts of the world.

So on behalf of the president and the American people, I want to look you in the eye and thank you for your continued service. I'll stop there, take a few questions. If there're any intrepid souls willing to put their hand up, and then we'll get on with some pictures and some coins.

So who's going to be the brave soul that first starts - into the face of the enemy? (Laughter.) Yes.

Q Yes, I'm PFC (inaudible). Sir, I was wondering about the rumors of extending the - sorry - the time you're spending for your tour to two years. If that's just a rumor or if it's true and also if it's true, are they planning to change - (off mike) - along the lines of vehicles - (off mike) - you can only have one - (off mike).

SEC. GATES: Yes, there is - I approved a couple of years ago - I have to get the specifics from General Sharp, but approved a couple of years ago the idea of tour normalization here in the South. And Skip, if I get this wrong, correct me, but what we're looking at is a two-year tour for single members of the service and three-year for families. We're proceeding with the first phase in terms of families.

It's - this is a long term project, in part because of the infrastructure that's going to have to be built to support the families at Humphreys and the cost and so on. But that is our plan and as we go to tour normalization with families, I think issues like you're raising in terms of vehicles and so on will all be raised - addressed, but the idea is - this forever has been a remote assignment in terms of not having families. And we think the circumstances are such, even after events like the Cheonan and so on that this is a place where American families would be comfortable and would be safe and make the service of our men and women in uniform more bearable and easier on the families.

GEN SHARP: Sir, to that point, the change that you made two years ago has brought us from about 1,600 families here in Korea to today we have over 4,200 families. And in fact, sir, even up here in Second Infantry Division, they have about 600 families that are command sponsored right now. But to be able to address the issues that you're talking about, we're looking at that and making sure that we build the infrastructure in order to be able to have even more families come to the point where we can eventually allow all families to come to get to about 14,000 families here.

Thank you, sir.

SEC. GATES: Yes, sir?

Q (Inaudible) - counterparts would like to ask, is there any revelation about - (inaudible).

SEC GATES: I'm sorry?

Q Is there any revelation about our Marines going to patrol caps, or berets?

SEC. GATES: First I've heard of it. (Laughter.) They don't tell me these things. (Laughter.)

Got some in the back here.

Q My name is Private Rogers and my - (inaudible) - article in USA Today with General Casey basically speaking about the possibility of going to a nine-month deployment in a combat zone, that way when soldiers return home that they're able to spend more time with their families based on a 24 or 36-month rest period. What's the possibility of that happening?

SEC. GATES: Well, that certainly is General Casey's goal. His goal is to have one year deployed and three years at home for the Army. We have a ways to go to get there. Our first goal is to get the one to two. And one of the reasons that the Army has had 12 months tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in contrast to the Marine Corps and the Navy and the Air Force and so on, among other things it's just been the logistics, trying to move as many forces as the Army had in Iraq and Afghanistan on nine-month centers has just been beyond our capability.

I think that what General Casey is hoping for is that stress on the force comes down with the drawdowns in Iraq - and we will be down to 50,000 troops in Iraq by the end of August. And as we put a limit - as we reach the authorized strength in Afghanistan, that then let's get to one to two and then move toward one to three. And I know that it is his goal that once we're not involved in these two wars simultaneously to be able to get to nine-month deployments, which would obviously be a lot easier on troops and their families.

I would say the first goal is to get to one-year deployed, two years at home, and then we can probably look at moving to nine-month tours. But I won't kid you. I think it's still - I think it's still a ways away. The first thing is to get everybody two years at home first.

Yes, right over here.

Q (Inaudible.)

SEC. GATES: That's a very good question and I think you would have to ask most of the state legislators that. I've often - the question in Vietnam was how come at 18 you're old enough - actually during Vietnam, you were old enough to be sent to war and you were old enough to drink, but you couldn't vote. And now, you can vote at 18 and you can enlist at 17 or 18, but you can't drink. And those are basically the rules that the states and Congress have imposed on us. And frankly I don't see much prospect that they're going to change. I understand the frustration.

Yes, ma'am, right here.

Q I was wondering about your views on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and what's the progress of that being relieved?

SEC. GATES: Well, the president has said that he wants the policy changed. It is the law, and so it requires an act of Congress to change the law. It has passed the Senate at this point, but it remains to be seen. In the meantime, we are carrying out this review of the entire military because I think as we - if we move down this road, if the law changes and we're told to implement it, and we will if the law changes, then how do we do this in a way that makes sense? How do we identify beforehand the problems, the issues, the challenges that we're going to face, the kind of training requirements we're going to need, the kinds of changes in regulations, the impact on benefits, all these things need to be addressed in advance. And that's where we want to hear from you all.

And just statistically some of you have to have gotten the questionnaire we sent out, since we sent it to 200,000 members of the active force and 200,000 members of the reserve component. But it's very important for us to hear from you your views on this and particularly the challenges and issues, or your support or your opposition for that matter, because we just need - we need a better understanding of how to do this smart.

I've told the Congress - I've been pretty blunt with them - there're two ways to carry out change. There's a smart way and there's a stupid way. And I'm determined that if we're going to - if a law changes and we carry out this change, I'm determined that we do it smart and in a way that has the least possible impact on our force, on our families, and on unit cohesion.

I would also say that my hope had been that the Congress would wait on legislation until after we'd heard from you all, in the hope that it might actually help shape the legislation. They haven't - they didn't - the House and Senate didn't do that, but they also have put in the law in such a way that we will be able to complete this review and do all the things necessary for smart implementation if the law changes without constraints of time. So I think the compromise that they came up with was not my preferred option, but it is an option I think we can work with because it won't rush us to do something stupid.

Maybe one more? Yes, sir.

Q Can you tell us more about the exercise?

SEC. GATES: Well, the general was just briefing me on that on the way up here in helicopter. It's going to be a pretty big exercise. I think altogether about 18 ships, 10 U.S., eight South Korean, a lot of aircraft, and there're going to be anti-submarine warfare operations. There'll be aircraft operations using the Air Force training range. So it's going to be a large exercise and a pretty broad-ranged exercise.

Okay, let's get some pictures.

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

July 20, 2010

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 408 St. Peter Street Suite 600 · St. Paul, MN 55102 · 1-800-439-1420

Subscribe/Unsubscribe on [MILITARY REPORTS]

Email Address: * Required

Unsubscribe

Remarks by Secretary Gates at Camp Casey, South Korea

(Applause.)

So who's going to be the brave soul that first starts - into the face of the enemy? (Laughter.) Yes.

Thank you, sir.

SEC. GATES: Yes, sir?

Q (Inaudible) - counterparts would like to ask, is there any revelation about - (inaudible).

SEC GATES: I'm sorry?

Q Is there any revelation about our Marines going to patrol caps, or berets?

SEC. GATES: First I've heard of it. (Laughter.) They don't tell me these things. (Laughter.)

Got some in the back here.

Yes, right over here.

Q (Inaudible.)

Yes, ma'am, right here.

Q I was wondering about your views on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and what's the progress of that being relieved?

Maybe one more? Yes, sir.

Q Can you tell us more about the exercise?

Okay, let's get some pictures.