Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Q. Madame Secretary, I had a question about your—the question of the dividends that are being—receiving— the Administration is receiving from its recommitment to alliances and alliance relationships. Many of our NATO allies definitely welcomed the shift in strategy and the recommitment to alliance relationships generally that the Administration put forward, but frankly, the response at Strasbourg-Kehl was little bit tepid, both on the military and the civil side. Now, President Obama characterized that as a down payment and that there would be more forthcoming, but yet we also still hear some allies hiding behind the complaint that, well, we haven't yet seen the full development of the civil side of the Administration's strategy.

So I wanted to ask you: Where do you see—do you see the second and third payments coming from our allies? And also, if you could give us a brief sense of where you are. You mentioned the recommitment of additional personnel to Afghanistan, civil personnel on the U.S. side. What about some of our allies and other partners in the world?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I agree that it was a down payment. And I guess I was more impressed by what we got than perficult it was to make the convincing case to allies who felt like they had been either shut out of the process or had a feeling that their contributions were not adequately appreciated. So we had a lot of catchup work to do, and it was part of our overall strategic review. Richard Holbrooke is here, and he has put together an interagency team as well as an international team. We have intense ongoing discussions with our ISAF allies and with others who want to play a part in promoting the strategy that the President put forth.

Now, it's challenging because of the global economic crisis that everybody faces. It's also difficult, as it is in our own country, to understand—well, wait a minute, you've been there for nearly eight years and now you're adding more troops and you're asking for more funding and you're going to send more civilians? So, I mean, we have to answer these questions in our own country. And you saw where Prime Minister Brown in Great Britain— they lost eight soldiers. And the government went out and began talking about why it was important to stand with the United States and others in Afghanistan, and got, from what I could glean, a more positive response than people anticipated. Because you have to be willing to try to assuage the fears and anxieties and paint a picture of where you're going.

Now, on the civilian side, this has been one of the areas that Jack Lew, my Deputy for Resources and Management, working with Ambassador Holbrooke and his team and USAID and everybody involved— we've actually been heartened by the numbers of people who have volunteered to go. But we've limited the areas that the United States is going to focus on. For example, you heard me say agriculture. istan live in rural areas.

Afghanistan used to be, in some descriptions, a garden of Central Asia and South Asia. And because of the Soviet invasion and the resistance to that and then the warlords, I mean, now it is so eroded and dry and—the whole agricultural base has to be reinvigorated. So we're really focused on that. We're not promising to be all things to all people. And in fact, we're working with our allies so that they will focus on areas that we are not able to any longer.

So look, this is very complicated. And the whole idea is to be able to clear and hold, which is what our Marines are doing in the south right now, and to provide security for people and to begin to see life return to markets and other means of common activity, and then to go in and work with local people: on their police force, which we will be focusing on; on agriculture; and obviously, since I'm Secretary of State, on women and women's roles and opportunities.

And I'm not here to say, we know exactly everything to do and every one of our allies is going to come through, but I am encouraged by those who feel the political pressure or the economic pressure to shift from military resources to civilian and development resources. And I think we've put together something which has a direct relationship to the strategy that we're now following.

Encourage Pakistan as it Confronts Extremism

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna delivered these remarks in New Delhi, India

Foreign Minister Krishna. Ladies and gentlemen of the press, it's my pleasure to welcome Her Excellency, Secretary of State of the United States of America, Madame Hillary Clinton, and distinguished members of her delegation.

Secretary Clinton is no stranger to India. Her deep and abiding interest and commitment to India has helped shape the U.S. policy of close engagement with India. Secretary Clinton not only had a key role in the founding of the India Caucus in the United States Congress, the largest congressional grouping focused on strengthening relations with any foreign country, but she has been a staunch and sincere advocate of the strengthening of United States-India relations.

She was one of the key supporters of the historic agreement between our two countries on civil nuclear cooperation, which were realized through a bipartisan effort in the United States Congress, and the desire to add qualitative substance to the United States-India relationship. Our talks covered a comprehensive agenda encompassing the full range of global and bilateral issues of mutual concern and interest. India and the United States of America regard each other as global partners. Our two democracies can play a leading and constructive role on the global level in addressing the urgent global challenges of our times.

The agenda of our dialogue today reflects this global dimension for partnership. With that mission to guide our path, we have created new forums for meaningful dialogue on climate change, disarmament, and nonproliferation. We also recognize the importance of ensuring that the steps planned to revive the global economy should safeguard the priorities of sustainable development and the goal of poverty alleviation in the developing world. Ours is a shared commitment to a rule-based, multilateral trading system, and we will continue to speak out against protectionism.

Cooperation, trade, and investment between India and the United States can play a constructive role in the revival of the world economy. We have held useful discussions on those situations in our region. In our discussion today, Secretary Clinton and I also reaffirmed the (inaudible) commitment of both our countries to resist the threats to our two democracies from the scourge of terrorism.

In our bilateral partnership, Secretary Clinton and I have focused on the new agenda for India- U.S. 3.0 in which we'll build on the excellent economic and political partnerships that already exist, redefine some of our dialogue to make them more result-oriented, and cleared new dialogues for achieving shared objectives in the areas of mutual interest.

Our governments have concluded three important documents, one on the creation of a science and technology (inaudible); two, a technical safeguards agreement which will permit the launch of civil or noncommercial satellites containing U.S. components on Indian space launch vehicles; and three, we have agreed on the end-use monitoring arrangements that will ensure their effort too in letters of acceptance for Indian procurement of U.S. defense technology can take effect.

The new dialogue that Secretary Clinton and I announced today on health, education, science and technology, and women's empowerment will impact positively on areas of vital interest and concern to the daily lives of our two peoples. We have issued a joint statement on these initiatives. A fact sheet on the new bilateral dialogue architectures has also been put out. We will now have frequent high-level contacts to lead towards these dialogues.

Before I invite Secretary Clinton to say a few words, I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to receive her here. I'm more than confident that with her commitment and leadership of the dialogue process from the U.S. side, and our equal enthusiasm and commitment, the initiative that our governments will work on will benefit both our peoples.

Now, Secretary Clinton.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you so much, Minister Krishna, for the warm welcome that your country has shown me and for the very productive conversations that we've had today. As I told the minister and Prime Minister Singh earlier, I have come to India deeply committed to building a stronger partnership between India and the United States, a partnership based on common interests and shared values and mutual respect. President Obama and I share this commitment and he sends his greetings. We believe that cooperation between our two countries will be a driver of progress in the 21st century.

Since I arrived here, people have asked me, “Can you pledge to maintain the positive U.S.-India relations that President Clinton and President Bush worked to build?” And I tell them that I can pledge more than that. We will work not just to maintain our good relationship, but to broaden and deepen it. And to that end, our governments have agreed to a strategic dialogue built on the five pillars in our joint statement. Minister Krishna and I will co-chair this dialogue, and we have asked senior officials across both of our governments to take the lead on each of the subjects.

A significant part of the President's cabinet will participate—the Secretaries of Agriculture and Trade and Energy and Education and Finance and Health and Human Services and Homeland Security and more. We do not, however, intend for this to be a dialogue between ministers, or even between governments, but between our nation and our people, our scientists and business leaders, our civil society activists and academics, charitable foundations, farmers, educators, doctors, entrepreneurs, and the whole range of each of our countries. Nor do we see this dialogue simply as a forum for discussing important issues. We believe it must be a forum for action.

The Indian people and the American people share many traits, and one of them is that we like to roll up our sleeves and get things done. We look to this dialogue to deliver results that will benefit the people we represent as well as regional and global progress. We have shown progress already by finalizing important agreements today, including an end-use monitoring agreement that will pave the way for greater defense cooperation between our countries, and a technology safeguards agreement that will set up commercial partnerships in space, as well as a science and technology agreement.

I'm also pleased that Prime Minister Singh told me that sites for two nuclear parks for U.S. companies have been approved by the government. These parks will advance the aims of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, facilitate billions of dollars in U.S. reactor exports, and create jobs in both countries, as well as generate much-needed energy for the Indian people. We hope that India will be able to approve the liability legislation that will enable our U.S. companies to seize these important opportunities.

These meetings today were a very productive precursor to the new strategic dialogue. We discussed every important matter, particularly our shared efforts to fight terrorism and violent extremism. We talked about pragmatic approaches to climate change and clean energy and how we can build on areas of common ground while narrowing areas of disagreement moving toward Copenhagen.

We will do our part to confront the threats that we face, and we will hope to deepen the commitment that both of us already have to meeting these threats. We discussed our common vision of a world without nuclear weapons and the practical steps that our countries can take to strengthen the goal of nonproliferation. And I affirm the Obama Administration's strong commitment to completing all of the remaining elements of our civil nuclear deal.

We also know that both of our countries play a critical role in the G-20 discussions about how to spur global economic growth and recovery, expand trade and commerce, reduce protectionism, and create fairer global trading rules. Now, each of our countries, as you would expect, have different perspectives about the problems we face and how we will solve them. But as the oldest democracy and the largest democracy in the world, we believe we can work through these differences in our perspectives and focus on shared objectives and concrete results.

I hope that an expanded partnership between the U.S. and India will be one of the signature accomplishments of both of our governments, and I plan to make this a personal priority, Minister Krishna.

As a sign of the importance of this relationship to the United States, I was pleased to extend an invitation earlier today to Prime Minister Singh from President Obama, inviting Prime Minister Singh to Washington on November 24th for the first state visit of our new Administration. At a time when the headlines are filled with challenges, the relationship between the United States and India is a good news story and I believe, Minister, that it's going to get even better.

Thank you very much.

Q. (Inaudible), I'm from ADP. Actually, I'm going to try and sneak in a question to each of you.

Minister Krishna, I wanted to ask you, you know, there have been some dramatic developments in the 26/11 case today with Ajmal Kasab confessing in court, and it seems to be like the pieces of a jigsaw falling into place with a number of developments over the last few days. The Pakistani (inaudible), we understand, the Indian side has been very pleased with that charge sheet in the case. Do you think that finally some substantial steps are being taken by Pakistan with regard to this case?

And Madame Secretary, I wanted to ask you whether it is your Administration's policy to prevent the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology of the Nuclear Suppliers Group? And if so, don't you think that that would undermine the spirit of the nuclear deal?

Foreign Minister Krishna. Thank you very much. We would like to have (inaudible) relationship with Pakistan. We would like to be good neighbors. And India is willing to do everything possible to make that happen.

But unfortunately, the attacks unleashed on Mumbai caused a great setback to the composite dialogue which was going on between India and Pakistan. Well, since then, at the highest level, there have been political exchanges. The prime minister of our country has spoken to the president of Pakistan. And very recently, he has had an interaction with the prime minister of Pakistan. As a result of that, we look forward—that when the United Nations General Assembly meets, there will be an opportunity for the foreign ministers of these two countries to continue this dialogue.

Secretary Clinton. As I understand your question, it was whether we opposed the transfer of processing and enrichment technology. Well, clearly, we don't. We have just completed a civil nuclear deal with India. So if it's done within the appropriate channels and carefully safeguarded, as it is in the case of India, then that is appropriate, but we are very much opposed to unauthorized and inappropriate transfers that unfortunately can take place by certain countries or non-state actors doing so.

So there is a right way to do it, and there is a very wrong way, and we're seeking the advice and suggestions from India about how we can prevent the unauthorized and dangerous transfer of nuclear technology and materiel which poses a threat to the entire world.

Q. Yeah. First up, I wanted to ask you, ma'am, that as far as Bush Administration was concerned and now the new Obama Administration is concerned, we have seen that there is a sense of feeling that this new Administration is more concerned and inclined toward deepening the relationship with Pakistan and—China and Pakistan. What are your comments on that?

Secretary Clinton. Well, my comments—if I don't choke—are that we have demonstrated very clearly the significance and importance of our relationship with India. We entered into this relationship to broaden and deepen it as partners already on the world stage. And what we have outlined today will be a significant expansion of our bilateral relationship. We also have a very important set of issues that we are pursuing with Pakistan, with China, and with many other countries around the world.

But I don't think you can understate the significance of our relationship as two democracies. We understand the difficulties of decision making in democracies. And we respect the vibrancy of each other's democracy. That is a much stronger base for a relationship than any other in the world, because it is democracies that are able to expand an understanding of common interests and show mutual respect, and that is what is at the core of our broadening relationship between us.

So yes, of course, we have relations with other countries. The United States is called upon to act globally every single hour of every single day. But as the invitation to Prime Minister Singh's first state visit in the Obama Administration demonstrates, we are very committed to this relationship.

Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen delivered these remarks in Arlington, VA

Secretary Gates. Good afternoon. On the recommendation of Secretary of the Army Pete Geren and Chief of Staff of the Army General George Casey, and with President Obama's strong support, today I am announcing a decision to temporarily increase the active-duty end strength of the Army by up to 22,000. That is a temporary increase from the current authorized end—permanent end strength of 547,000 to an authorized temporary end strength of 569,000 active-duty soldiers.

I came into this job in 2006 with the belief that we did not have enough forces to properly support the extended pace of combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. Shortly after taking office, and mindful of the decision to surge additional forces into Iraq, I recommended and the president and the Congress approved a permanent increase in the size of the Army of 65,000 and the Marine Corps of 27,000. At the time, it was judged that these increases would sustain the projected level of deployments and lower the stress on the force. At the same time, I directed that the Army continue to reduce the size of the nondeployable or institutional part of the force.

Much has changed over the last two years, causing us to reassess whether we are properly sized to support current operational needs. In Iraq, significant progress has ushered in a security agreement with the government of Iraq and new policy direction by President Obama to significantly draw down U.S. forces by next year and completely by the end of 2011.

By contrast, the escalating violence in Afghanistan and political turmoil in Pakistan has resulted in a new policy direction by the president and an associated increase in American forces in Afghanistan to implement it. The persistent pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last several years has steadily increased the number of troops not available for deployment in the Army. The decision to eliminate the routine use of stop-loss authority in the Army also requires a larger personnel float for each deploying unit to compensate for those whose contract expires during the period of deployment.

The Army has reached a point of diminishing returns in its multi-year program to reduce the size of its training and support tail. The cumulative effect of these factors is that the Army faces a period where its ability to continue to deploy combat units at acceptable fill rates is at risk.

Based on current deployment estimates, this is a temporary challenge which will peak in the coming year and abate over the course of the next three years.

For these reasons, I have authorized the Army to temporarily increase its personnel strength by up the 22,000 troops for a period of three fiscal years. These additional forces will be used to ensure that our deploying units are properly manned, and not to create new combat formations.

The department will not seek additional funds for fiscal years '09 or 2010 to implement this decision, and will work with OMB and the Congress in putting together the necessary fiscal program in the remaining two years.

I am mindful that during this period of financial crisis this decision will result in additional tough choices for the department, calling to mind my comments in the past about things that we don't need creating problems for us in the areas we do need.

However, I am convinced that this is an important and necessary step to ensure that we continue to properly support the needs of our commanders in the field, while providing relief for our current force and their families.

Admiral.

Admiral Mullen. I would just add that I fully support this increase. I've grown, as you all know, increasingly concerned over the last year and a half about stress on the force and our ability to meet the demands out there. This temporary increase helps us address that concern.

It will also help us get a better handle on dwell time and boost the number of people we can deploy with the capabilities our commanders most need. And that's really the larger point here. It's not just about relief. It's about renewing our efforts to fight these two wars.

This has many components; managing stress in the OPTEMPO for troops and families is one. So is meeting the demands for the kind of skills and the kind of thinking we need to complete the mission in Iraq while shifting the main effort to Afghanistan.

As you all know, I just returned from a trip to both places.

And what I found was, across the theater, a much deeper appreciation and understanding of counterinsurgency warfare than I found in the past, especially in Afghanistan, where nearly to a person our troops had read General McChrystal's tactical directive on civilian casualties, understood it and were executing at a very high level.

Perfect example of that were the Marines down in Helmand, who I spent a day with, and I can tell you they really do get it. They reported not one civilian casualty up to that point in their operations and were using and were espousing a very disciplined and deliberate amount of care for the Afghan people.

And he soldiers we are looking to add to our force will no doubt give us some breathing room, but they will also give us room to run in what I believe is an even faster-paced war against an even more adaptive enemy. It's the right thing to do.

I told the troops we're living in a time not only of great change, but also great simultaneity. Many things are happening all at once in many different places; and though we may be tired, we must stay focused. Now, particularly in Afghanistan, is no time to lower our gaze or pull back our outstretched hands.

Q. A question for both of you, please. A couple weeks, now, past the June 30th handover of control in the cities in Iraq, how do you assess the level of cooperation and the level of tension between U.S. forces and Iraqi forces, particularly in Baghdad? There's been a couple of reports of disagreements or even standoffs over who gets to do what when. Are you convinced that you have the authority you need to protect the force and that you can operate as you need to?

Secretary Gates. I received a report from General Odierno just today that addressed this issue. And he said that the level of cooperation and collaboration with the Iraqi security forces is going much better than is being portrayed publicly and in the media. So my impression from his reporting, and not just this week but over the last couple of weeks, has been that it's actually, in his view, going quite well.

Admiral?

Admiral Mullen. All discussions I've had with General Odierno, including one midweek last week, about this issue have been very positive. Certainly there are challenges. I would point out the independent effort that the Iraqi forces provided recently in terms of providing security for the visit of many, many Iraqis to a very sacred mosque.

And that, as an example—the—we continue to clearly work with them. But from the time actually before the 30th of June when we had been pulling out of cities until up to now, it's been positive. There clearly are challenges, but I think the leadership is working its way through each one of those challenges. So I'm encouraged.

Q. Secretary, over the weekend the Taliban, as you know, released a video of PFC Bowe Bergdahl, captured around June 30th in Afghanistan.

Has the U.S. military, has the department been able to glean anything from that video? And for both of you, please, what was your personal reaction when you saw this American soldier put on display in that manner?

Secretary Gates. Well, let me—because the admiral just got back from there, let me ask him to address it. But I would just say, by way of introduction, that first of all, our commanders are sparing no effort to find this young soldier. And I also would say my personal reaction was one of disgust at the exploitation of this young man.

Admiral Mullen. And I deplore the exploitation of him and would just reaffirm what the secretary said, having been with the forces in fact who are conducting the operations to recover him or to find him is—they are extensive, vast. They're on it 24/7. And we're doing absolutely everything we can to get him back.

Q. And anything anyone was able to glean from this video?

Admiral Mullen. Well, from a—I mean, from a—I guess, an intelligence perspective, we certainly wouldn't share that publicly. And I guess I—we're certainly looking at that, studying it very hard, and I'd just leave it at that.

Q. Admiral Mullen, I wanted to talk to you about Afghanistan. You spoke about the tactical directive, counterin-surgency—(inaudible). You said that troops, I think, were showing a lot of discipline. And I think you were quoted in the papers over the weekend as saying—if this was accurate—that “We killed too many civilians. One is too many.”

But what I wanted to ask you, and maybe both of you, is, both of you for so many years have sat here and talked about the notion that the U.S. military takes every precaution and is more careful than any other country out there about the caution on civilian casualties. But yet I don't see how that squares with the fact that you now have done something else; now you have the tactical directive. So clearly, there was something else that could be done that wasn't done until now. And yet you talked for so long about being more careful than anybody else. How do you square both these views?

Admiral Mullen. I think every—every civilian casualty is a tragic loss in and of itself. And in fact, the secretary, myself and commanders earlier this year, beginning of the year, took a—what we believe was a significant step in that direction. And yet we continue to have—we had— we've had incidents, and most recently the Farah incident.

And what struck me on this trip was how—how quickly and how deeply this message from General McChrystal had penetrated, both on the aircraft carrier when we talked to the air wing that was having a much more comprehensive discussion about a target set, if you will, and other choices before you had to release a weapon, to the Marines who had conducted this operation most recently and not had a single casualty.

And I just found it much more inculcated, and in ways it's very much a learning process. I don't—I think it's—when I talked earlier about—we've—you know, we've killed too many civilians, I think part of it has been, since we've been in the fight, a learning process, which has brought us to this point.

Believe me, if I thought taking additional steps six months ago—if I had thought of those, I certainly would have done that. And that's part of what we've gone through. What I was taken with, again, is how quickly McChrystal's directive had been grasped by everybody.

Q. But Mr. Secretary, let me try it this way. If you—for so many years, yourself, your predecessors have said the U.S. does everything it can. I mean, you've said this for many years now. And yet clearly, there were other steps to take. Are you satisfied that it has taken eight years to figure out these other steps?

Secretary Gates. Well, I'm only going to speak to the last 2-1/2. And my view is that it has been an evolutionary process. I think all of the things that I have said and that the admiral has said about the U.S taking more care with respect to civilian casualties than anybody else is absolutely true. I think that, you know, when I was in Afghanistan over a year ago, I took Afghan press with me to Bagram, where they received a briefing, along with me, of the measures that were taken by our pilots to check and double-check and triple-check to try and avoid civilian casualties when they were attacking a target.

What I think we've seen is, first of all, I took the approach early last year that we should change our approach when there are civilian casualties, in terms of how we react, because we were reacting too slowly. And then General McKiernan took steps to try and tighten up how we went at operations with respect to avoiding civilian casualties. And I think General McChrystal has taken it to yet another level, with, frankly, some fairly significant changes in tactical direction, but also from a strategic standpoint.

And I think that—our concern all along has been that we—that we not place our own troops in increased jeopardy.

And so the question has been, how do we design our offensive operations in a way that will reduce the possibility of civilian casualties? And I think that's what General McChrystal has undertaken.

I stand by the fact that nobody cares more and worries more and works harder to avoid civilian casualties than we have over the last—certainly ever since I've been in this job, and I'm confident before.

But I think it has been an evolutionary policy, and I think it's reached a completely different level under General McChrystal. And it really keys off of his testimony during his confirmation hearing that the measure of success is not the number of Taliban killed but the number of Afghans protected.

Q. Mr. Secretary, is a further U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan now all but certain, given General McChrystal's desire to increase both the size and the pace of the training of Afghan security forces?

Secretary Gates. No, I don't think it's inevitable. We're waiting to see what— what his 60-day review produces. It's fine with me if he takes the full 60 days to examine it. I've asked him to scrub very hard the forces that are already there, to ensure that we're using them to maximum effectiveness, and so we'll just wait and see. But I don't think there's—I don't think an answer either way, or an outcome either way is inevitable at this point.

Q. How can you make a dramatic increase in the pace and size of training of the Afghan security forces without more trainers?

Secretary Gates. Well, for one thing, we have another brigade coming in later this summer—early fall—whose principal responsibility is going to be for training, so that's 4,000 additional forces that are going to be devoted almost exclusively to training.

Admiral Mullen. The other thing I would add to that, David, is the—almost every major unit that's coming in is going to have a training responsibility in addition to its other responsibilities. I mean, so there's very heavy focus on training police as well as the army. And additionally, there are—there are forces coming in, training capabilities coming in, from other countries, as well.

Secretary Gates. Yes.

Q. Mr. Secretary and Admiral, there seems to have been a change, both substantively and rhetorically, coming out of Iraq, where, substantively, lower-level American commanders say that they're being asked to provide route convoy information before they leave, which they worry about for obvious security reasons. And rhetorically, there were comments today, which I was struck by, from the spokesperson for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, who was describing America's soldiers in Iraq as being under house arrest. He said that: They're getting impatient because we confine them to their bases, which are like big prisons; they're under house arrest.

So, two questions. One, substantively. How confident are you that the safety of American troops is being protected, given that you have commanders speaking openly with fears that it is not currently as safe as it could be? But, two, if the Iraqis see our presence there as putting us under house arrest, putting our soldiers into that prison, why are we there?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I think that I certainly have not heard anything from General Odierno that would indicate that our soldiers have been put at increased risk. And second, it is perhaps a measure of our success in Iraq that politics have come to the country.

Admiral Mullen. What I would only add to that is, being—having been in Kirkuk the other day and spending the better part of the day with the brigade commander there, who has been there over a half a year, his interaction with the security forces, both police as well as the army—and in addition, he's in a spot where he's looking at the interface between Peshmerga as well as the Iraqi army, as well.

And believe me, the idea that he was somehow either handcuffed or unable to do what he's doing—was—what he's supposed to do, it just never came up.

Secretary Gates. Yeah.

Q. Admiral, from your Afghanistan visit, what's your assessment of the level of Taliban resistance or response to the U.S.-led offensive? And are you satisfied that, as Secretary Gates said, the new rules about protecting civilians are not creating more dangers for U.S. troops?

Admiral Mullen. I discussed the civilian-casualty issue and the tactical directive broadly with seniors and juniors alike, and the issue of not being able to execute or protect themselves just never came up. In fact, what I found was an enthusiasm for that that was very important.

And I'll give a quick example of Marines who actually had a group of Taliban in a house, and they were very patient, where some time ago they may have taken that house out. They were looking, they were waiting and waiting. And, in fact, they were assured all women and children were out.

They continued to wait, and not too long after that, in that patience, an—or a—sorry, an Afghan woman came out with two of her fingers shot off, bleeding very badly. The Marines went to her. And in that regard—you know, while that was occurring there were about 12 other individuals that came out dressed in burqas thinking—with additional—with children—in their hands, walking with them.

And, in fact, they were actually Taliban masquerading as women. And, in fact, in the end, what the locals said was that they were cowards, how dare they hide behind women—you know, dress as women and hide behind children.

So what that said to me is our people are thinking three and four steps out. And, in fact, the message is that the locals turn against the Taliban, which, in the long run, is the right answer. So I just—and I found other examples of that while I was there as well. So that's—that has really— in my view, that's an example of it really sinking in.

And the first part—

Q. And just—the first part was the level of Taliban resistance. And if I could add also, General Nicholson said he only has 650 Afghan troops with the 4,000 Marines. Any word on why that is or whether that can be increased?

Admiral Mullen. Well, that's how the forces have been distributed. I'm assured that General McChrystal is going to make that part of his assessment, and so we'll see what that distribution is and whether or not it changes as a result of that.

Two aspects of the Taliban. One is, in some places they're just not standing and fighting. They're dispersing. But the other is that they've reached a level of sophistication, in some cases, which is pretty high. And I've talked to a couple Rangers who were in some pretty tough fights that were surprised that the Taliban were as good and as sophisticated as they were.

Q. If I could ask you about the—what you call General McChrystal's approach in Afghanistan. As part of the search effort for the missing—of the captured American soldier, some leaflets have been handed out, one of which shows an American soldier kicking down a door, with the words, in Pashto, saying, “If you don't hand him over, we will hunt you.” Doesn't it sound—send a conflicting message to the local population if you're trying to wind hearts and minds when you have a leaflet like that? And what is your opinion of that leaflet?

Admiral Mullen. Well, I mean, it's a— again, I would reiterate that there's a tremendous effort ongoing to return this individual to us, and it is full spectrum. Clearly, the enemy is able to, as they are, use this in their own—in their own information way. I don't think that message is meant to be—to be threatening as much as it is to express the concern and that we will go to every end to find this individual, which is what we're doing right now.

Q. Mr. Secretary?

Secretary Gates. You know, that's the kind of thing that I leave to the judgment of the commanders in the field. I'm not going to try and second-guess those kinds of things from here. Clearly, there's a balance here between the effort to try and recover our soldier, get him back, and how we interact with the local population. And I think in a tactical sense the commanders in the field are a lot better able to do that than I am.

Q. Back to the announcement you made earlier. You referred to additional tough choices. Can you just speak a little bit more to that? What would those choices perhaps be, say, out of the supplemental to pay for the expansion? And what's the cost, do you think?

Secretary Gates. It goes—it goes to the line I have been using all spring. This is a zero-sum budget. If money for one thing as opposed to another has to come out of it, there has to be an offset. And so the cost we expect for the rest of fiscal year '09—just a couple of months left, a little over that, two and a half months—probably on the order of less than a hundred million dollars; for FY '10 a billion dollars.

I've told the president and the Hill that we need their support obviously for reprogrammings, but we will absorb those costs within our current top line, and then work with them, as I said in my statement, in terms of '11 and '12.

But we will take that money from some place that we think isn't as high a priority as more soldiers and taking some additional steps to relieve the stress on the force. This is a very high priority, and this is why, frankly, some of the wheeling and dealing on the Hill of a few hundred million (dollars) here and a few hundred million (dollars) there for a pet project here and a pet project there confront us with ever more difficult choices when we're trying to make trade-offs in terms of how do we help our soldiers out, how do we relieve the stress on the force. The money's got to come from somewhere, and this is the point that I've been trying to make all along.

Q. Mr. Secretary, I'm wondering if you can talk about the ramifications of the F-22 vote. If you prevail, does this mean it's going to be easier for you to retool the Pentagon in the way you want? Conversely, if you lose, are your efforts doomed?

Secretary Gates. Well, I—you know, first of all, I think it's important to remember—I mean, the vote this evening clearly—I guess it's going to be this evening—is important, but the reality is that the president has been quite clear that if there is money for the F-22 in the budget that comes to him, he will veto it. So that's pretty clear.

I would say that while there are several areas where we do have a disagreement with some on the Hill, I made about 50 program decisions that I—and I announced the main ones on April 6th. But the reality is, the Congress has embraced most of those. And they certainly have embraced all of the initiatives that I announced with respect to taking care of our people and taking care of the force.

So I think that there is—while there are several very high- profile programs that are a source of contention, the reality is that much of what we are trying to do is reflected in the markups that have been passed so far and I think is being internalized inside this building, as I watch the QDR go forward and so on.

You know, I wouldn't presume to say that such changes are lasting at this point. But I think that just based on what I see in the discussions of the QDR, I think a lot of the points have been internalized.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by CBS in Washington, DC

Q. I want to get to another hotspot, and that, of course, is Afghanistan. And the headline coming out this week: “U.S. Deaths Hit a Record High in Afghanistan.” The total of 31 so far in July makes for the deadliest month of the war. Is—given that the President is surging up forces, 17,000 additional troops going to Afghanistan, is this a war of necessity for this President, or has it become his war of choice?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think the President has been very firm in stating that the policy that was followed in Afghanistan was not working. He said it throughout the campaign. He made that clear upon becoming President. And we know that the threat to the United States, and in fact, those who plotted and carried out the horrific attack on 9/11 against our country, have not yet been brought to justice, killed, or captured. So the President's goal is to dismantle and destroy and eventually defeat al-Qaida.

Q. And yet, if I can just stop you, the real focus now is fighting the Taliban, which is an insurgent movement. And Thomas Friedman wrote this on Wednesday. I'd like you to respond to it:

“America has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby. The troop surge that President Obama ordered in Afghanistan early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed—if ever. We came to Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaida, now we're in a long war with the Taliban. Is that really a good use of American power?”

Secretary Clinton. Well, David, we had an intensive strategic review upon taking office, and we not only brought the entire United States Government together, but we reached out to friends and allies, people with stakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And as you know, the result of that strategic review was to conclude that al-Qaida is supported by and uses its extremist allies, like elements within the Taliban and other violent extremist groups in the region as well as worldwide, to extend its reach, to be proxies for a lot of its attacks on Jakarta, Indonesia and elsewhere. So that in order to really go after al-Qaida, to uproot it and destroy it, we had to take on those who are giving the al-Qaida leadership safe haven.

Now, as you know, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is permeable. There are movements back and forth across it. I think our new strategy, which has been endorsed by a very large number of nations, some of whom don't agree with us on a lot of other things, is aimed at achieving our primary goal.

And we also learned from Iraq, which were hard lessons, that in order to have our military intervention be effective when they go in and try to clear areas of the extremists, we have to follow in to build up the capacity of the local community to defend itself and to be able to realize the benefits of those changes.

This is a new strategy. It's just beginning. I think the President believed that it was not only the right strategy, but facing what he faced, to withdraw our presence or to keep it on the low-level, limited effectiveness that had been demonstrated, would have sent a message to al-Qaida and their allies that the United States was willing to leave the field to them.

And in addition, importantly, we've seen the Pakistani Government and military really step up, which had not happened to the extent it has now. So the Taliban, which is, as I believe strongly, part of a kind of terrorist syndicate with al-Qaida at the center, is now under tremendous pressure. And I think that's in America's national interest.

Now, I have to add, nobody is more saddened than the President and I by the loss of life of our young men and women, and no one is more impatient than we are to see the results of this sacrifice bear fruit. We have the most extraordinary military in the world. They have leadership now we think is totally on point in terms of what we are attempting to accomplish. And I think that we'll see benefits come from that.

Q. But if you look at it, the Bush Administration policy in Asia and now the Obama Administration policy in Asia is not that different. You too are distracted by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So I don't see what's really changed.

Secretary Clinton. No, see, I disagree with that. I mean, part of what we have done is to organize ourselves so that we can concentrate on many important issues at the same time. I know that, for example, people have raised questions about why I pushed so hard to have special envoys appointed. It's because I think it would be diplomatic malpractice not to have people of stature and experience handling some of our most difficult problems on a day-to-day basis. I'm the chief diplomat, I'm responsible at the end for advising the President, for executing the policy that we agree upon, but it is to our advantage to have George Mitchell in the Middle East today, to have Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan, to have retired General Scott Gration coming back from probably his sixth or seventh trip to Sudan, having Todd Stern leading our efforts on climate change. I could not possibly have given the attention that we need in the in-depth way that is required to all of this.

And I think the feeling on the part of much of the world was that the prior administration, for understandable reasons, focused so much on some of the specific issues, like Iraq, et cetera, that really grabbed it and required a lot of attention, that much of the rest of the world felt that they were kind of second tier. When I went to the ASEAN meeting, it hadn't been for some time that we'd had a Secretary of State pay continuing attention. We announced an exciting new relationship with the lower Mekong countries—Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand. We are working everywhere we can to make clear that the United States cannot solve all the problems of the world alone, but the world cannot solve them without the United States.

Secretary Robert Gates and General James Cartwright delivered these remarks in Arlington, VA

Secretary Gates. Afternoon. Before taking your questions, I want to share a few thoughts about where we are in Afghanistan.

One week from now, the people of Afghanistan will go to the polls to elect a president and provincial councils. The role of the Afghan and international military forces is to support an election administered and organized by the government of Afghanistan. The goal is to provide a security environment as conducive as possible to holding a fair, credible election free from violence and intimidation.

Due to some of the military operations that have taken place in the Helmand province and other places in the south, it looks like more Afghans will be able to vote than had been the case before the recent deployment of additional U.S. forces, and obviously that's an encouraging development. In terms of the overall security situation in the country, my view and, I believe, the view of most of our military commanders, is that we are looking at a mixed picture. In some parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban have clearly established a presence. The operations under way now and those being considered for the coming months are designed to roll back the Taliban and establish a lasting security and government presence, a presence that can give the Afghan people confidence that they will be protected from intimidation and retribution.

An absolutely critical factor in the success of this mission is reducing civilian casualties from military operations. And I believe the rules of engagement changes that General McChrystal has put in place are making a real difference, though we still have more work to do in this area.

These military operations are but one component of a multi-faceted strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan announced by the president four-and-a-half months ago.

At this time, General McChrystal is assessing the security situation, in the context of the president's goals and strategy, and will submit his assessment, to us and to NATO, sometime between the Afghan election and early-September.

That assessment will not include specific recommendations or requests for more forces. However we've made clear to General McChrystal that he is free to ask for what he needs, to complete the important mission that he has been given.

Though there's been a good deal of reporting recently, about what General McChrystal may ask for, I can tell you, it's premature to speculate on that. Any future resource request will be considered separately and subsequent to his assessment of the security situation.

We'd be happy to take your questions.

Ann.

Q. A question for both of you, please.

How long do you think American combat forces will be fighting active war in Afghanistan?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think, that's— you know, in the intelligence business, we always used to categorize information in two ways: secrets and mysteries. The secrets were things that were ultimately knowable. Mysteries were those where there were too many variables to predict. And I think that how long U.S. forces will be in Afghanistan is in that—is in that area.

I think that we are certainly hoping to see progress within a year, in terms of the new—the president's new strategy and General McChrystal's new strategy and tactics. And certainly it would be our hope that, assuming that we are moving in the right direction, that we would see a situation, as we have seen in Iraq, over the past two-and- a-half years, where more and more of the security responsibility will flow from international security forces to Afghan security forces.

I think that we all see—we and our allies, as well as the Afghans, see a significant pacing factor here to be the speed with which we can accelerate the growth of the Afghan National Army and Police.

And we have a lot of money in the budget to do that for fiscal year '10. And so I think that, you know, it's just not possible to predict specific periods of time when you're in a conflict like this, where the enemy has a vote and where there are so many variables. But I think—as I've said from the very beginning, I think that we need to be in a position to be able to show progress within a year.

But being in a position where we could completely be where we are in Iraq depends a lot on the political environment inside Afghanistan and also on the Afghan national security forces.

General.

General Cartwright. Now I'll stick with the mystery construct, but things that I would look for that would tell us that we're moving in the right direction, to the end of the significant engagements part of this and more into the holding side of this, would be when we can start to turn over certain areas and responsibilities to either the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for security. When that security is in the equal interests of us and the people there, and they acknowledge it and they contribute to it, they help us maintain the security. When you start to see that attitude change, then you start to have a sense that things are going to move in a direction that would be towards the end of the violence side of this equation, which is what I think you're asking about, and then more towards the stability, the holding and the building side of the equation.

Q. But clearly what you're hoping to achieve in Afghanistan—rebuilding institutions, increasing the size of the forces, the economy—is going to take many years. Incoming top British General David Richards says British troops will be committed there for 30 to 40 years. That sound about right?

Secretary Gates. No, I don't agree with that. And first of all, I think you have to differentiate between institution-building and economic development, on the one hand, and defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda on the other. And I think that the one—the latter can be accomplished in a—from—with all of the considerations that I just described, in a few years.

The larger part of it, economic development and institution-building, probably is a decades-long enterprise in a country has been through 30 years of war and has as high an illiteracy rate as Afghanistan does and low level of economic development. So that is a long-term prospect, but it's also one of those areas where virtually all of our international partners and nongovernmental organizations are committed to that side of the equation for an indefinite of period of time. But that's what we do all over the world in developing countries. And so that is a long-term prospect.

But in terms of the security situation, I think you're looking at a much shorter time frame.

Q. So it's several years to get stable security in the country, you think?

Secretary Gates. No, I said it's unpredictable. I said perhaps in a few years. But I think we have to show progress over the course of the next year.

Q. Well, General Cartwright, first, can you give us an update on the current operation in Helmand province? Is it accomplishing what you set out to do? Will it achieve better security or the desired security in advance of the election?

And for the secretary, is this the desired timeline for this kind of operation, or couldn't something along the same lines have been done sooner without just days to spare before the election?

General Cartwright. I think, on the first count, with the work that's going on in Helmand, we're seeing positive signs. I think the commanders believe that they are making progress.

What's the end state? If the election is the timeline that we're looking at, the metric is, are more people able to come out and avail themselves of the democratic process of voting?

Yes, that looks like it's going to be the case, all the indications are.

Are we stable there? Do we—have we obtained all of the objectives we intend to obtain in Helmand? Not yet. We've got a lot of work to do there.

And my sense is—back to the original question—you know, that's probably going to take us some time. But we have—certainly, I think, from the standpoint of the Marines in Helmand and now the Strykers, as they start to roll in—have established a situation and an environment where the elections are going to be better off than they were before.

Secretary Gates. I think the answer to your second—the second part of your question's pretty straightforward. The forces weren't available to send in until fairly recently. We got them in there as fast as we could.

Q. Mr. Secretary, if you look at four-and-a-half months of the new regional Afghan-Pak strategy, one of the things we don't hear any of you talk about anymore at all, really, is the hunt for Osama bin Laden. As you look at this regional strategy and you're so busy with this, administration-wide, to what extent has the hunt for bin Laden become less of a priority? On a scale of one to 10, basically.

Secretary Gates. Well, I think that we are still very interested in getting rid of the leadership of al Qaeda. And I can tell you that the effort against al Qaeda, not just in Afghanistan but in other parts of Africa and the Middle East, goes on. And—but I think that our view—my view is that what we need to do—we—I think we have done some real damage over time to the al Qaeda organization and leadership.

And I think they still have capabilities. They are still the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world, with respect to this country and a lot of our allies. So they remain a very high priority. By the same token, that doesn't mean that we can't resource the effort in Afghanistan either.

Q. Mr. Secretary, with respect though, I understand what you're saying about the leadership. My question really goes to, so many Americans eight years later remain deeply interested. And the president, while he was campaigning for office, talked about capturing or killing him.

So to what extent—him in particular—can you tell Americans? Have you had any good leads in recent months? Do you still—does this administration still look for him every day? Are you— what's the priority on trying to get him?

Secretary Gates. I would—I would say that the United States and our allies and partners continue to have the hunt for al Qaeda very high on our priority list. I'd just leave it at that.

Q. Sir, this trust agreement with Colombia, allowing U.S. anti-drug missions to operate from military bases there, has caused a lot of concern among Latin-American countries, among them U.S. allies.

So do you feel like this agreement is worth the political price? And what guarantees can you give that the U.S. will actually not deviate from its mission there, inside the Colombian border?

Secretary Gates. Well, let me start and then ask General Cartwright to pitch in. Virtually all of the counternarcotics efforts that we pursue, in Latin America, are in partnership with other countries. These are not unilateral actions on our part. And we hope to continue these partnerships.

Clearly the need for reconnaissance, for being able to find laboratories and so on—we bring some assets to this that our allies welcome. And that's really what this is all about is, how do we work together and more effectively with our partners in the region, to go after these narcotics cartels?

General Cartwright. I mean, as you may know, this is talking about seven bases in particular. And the intent here, what we're doing is going in first—and we use these bases to provide capability to the Colombians. It's going in and actually assessing the bases for safety and security, the ability to give us fuel, park, and weight-bearing of the runways, things like that.

The intent, though, the strategic intent is, in fact, to be able to provide to the Colombians that what they need in order to continue to prosecute their efforts against the internal threats that they have. This is a bilateral relationship with the Colombians.

Q. So do you think that the criticisms or concerns expressed by Latin American allies, U.S. allies, are unfounded?

General Cartwright. I think we need to do a better job of explaining to them what we're doing and making it as transparent as possible. Because anybody's concerns are valid, and so if they have concerns we need to do a better job about describing what we're doing, to make sure that we allay those concerns to the best of our ability.

Q. Since the spring, when the Swat Valley fighting began, Pakistan has responded and there's been more fighting with—I mean, with Americans as well, on the border since the strike; intelligence sharing, all of that going on. Pew came out with a report today on Pakistan public opinion that says only 9 percent of Pakistanis see the U.S. as a partner; 64 percent still see the U.S. as the enemy. What—how is that—how do you react to that new statistic? What do you think is DOD's role in reaching—in changing that kind of public opinion?

And personally, Mr. Secretary, do you see a need to go to Pakistan—you haven't been there recently, or this year—but you know, taking this to a level up—all the way up to your office, personally?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think that, first of all, one of the reasons that the Pakistanis have concerns about us is that we walked away from them twice. We walked away from them after the Soviets left Afghanistan, and we walked away from them through the 1990s because of the Pressler amendment. And so, our military-to-military relations were significantly interrupted. And so, I think that the Pakistanis probably—and with some legitimacy—question our—how long are we prepared to stay there? Is the only reason we're interested in working with the Pakistanis because of the war in Afghanistan? Or do we value Pakistan as a partner and an ally independent of the war in Afghanistan?

The latter is the case. And I think that the bills on the Hill, to provide multi-year economic assistance to Pakistan, manifest that. So I think it's going to take us some time to rebuild confidence, with the Pakistani people, that we are a long-term friend and ally of Pakistan.

By the same token, I think that the polls that are perhaps more meaningful in this context is the strong support that the Pakistani people seem to have given, to their government, in terms of the activities in western Pakistan, in the FATA and in the North-West Frontier Province.

And there, there seems to be, more than I think any of us would have expected six months ago, broad political support for what the Pakistani military is doing in the west.

And I think that this change of attitudes and the success of the Pakistani forces clearly serves our interest as well as it serves the interest of the Pakistanis. And so my hope is that over time, we will be able to demonstrate, to the Pakistanis, that we are a reliable ally that they can count on for the long term.

As I look at my travel schedule, over the—over the next six or eight months, one of the places that I am looking— thinking about going is back to Pakistan, because it has been a while.

Admiral Mullen obviously has developed a good relationship with General Kayani. And I think he's made something like a dozen or 13 visits to Pakistan, over the past 15 months. But it probably is time for me to return.

Q. You mentioned when you left Iraq a few weeks ago that there was the potential to speed up the drawdown even further, bring another BCT out of Iraq before the end of this year. Is that—is it safe to assume that that's still on the table, despite an uptick in recent violence there?

And isn't it—would that likely be done—a brigade not going in and instead going to Afghanistan to fill the—what seems like a continuing need there?

Secretary Gates. Well, not necessarily, but I would say that—we had a video conference with General Odierno earlier this week, and I think he's feeling pretty positive about the way things are going in Iraq.

So I would say that despite the uptick— which is clearly one of the things that he made clear that is a positive development, is that the Shi'a clearly recognize that this is al Qaeda trying to restoke sectarian violence. This is not the Sunnis coming after the Shi'a; this is al Qaeda. And it's one of the reasons that the Shi'a have been as restrained as they have and not reacted. And so I think, you know, I raised it as a possibility.

I think that's a decision, whether or not to do it, that he will make probably several months from now.

Q. Back to the troops issue. In your opening statement, you said that McChrystal's assessment will not include a request for more forces, but he's free to ask for what he needs. So was he specifically told not to ask for more forces? And if it is more forces that he needs, are you willing to put a cap on that number?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all—and we'll both answer that—General McChrystal has been told very directly by both the chairman and by me that we want him to ask for what he thinks he needs. And I think you have to allow your commanders that freedom.

And then the chain of command—General Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs, chairman and the vice chairman, myself—will all look at that and decide what to recommend. And so we're not talking about caps. Where—what we're waiting for is his assessment and then to see what options or courses of action he puts forward, independent of the assessment, as we move forward. But as General Cartwright said, the reality is, he's still got another full brigade to come in—the 4th of the 82nd. And so these forces are still flowing that already have been made available or approved by the president. And so, you know, we need—he needs some time and we need some time to see what the impact of all of that is. help them.

Q. In turn, does that mean that there may be greater attention to protecting people in population centers, rather than fighting the Taliban in particularly remote places?

Secretary Gates. I suspect that may be something that's addressed in the general's assessment.

Q. Mr. Secretary, how do you assess the security meeting held yesterday in Damascus between U.S. military officials and the Syrian government? What kind of results you are expecting and improvement you are expecting from the Syrian government?

Secretary Gates. Well, I haven't received a readout on the meeting, or heard anything about the results, but the reason they're there is that when foreign fighters cross the Syrian-Iraqi border they more often than not target American troops. And so our expectation—my expectation is that—that Syrians need to do more in terms of stopping those foreign facilitators and foreign fighters.

Q. Mr. Secretary, if I may ask two questions, first one on Afghanistan, do you see any evidence that al Qaeda is playing a role in the recent fighting? I mean, is there any kind of coordination between al Qaeda and Taliban in the current battles with the U.S. troops?

And second one is on Somalia. Do you think the level of assistance given by the U.S. to the interim government is enough to defeat al-Shabab, or from your own assessment you need to send more assistance, technical support maybe, to see a change?

Secretary Gates. Well, with respect to the latter, I think, with Secretary Clinton just having been in Africa and in Kenya, I'm interested in hearing her evaluation based on what she has learned out there before I make any judgment about whether we ought to be doing—recommend to the president that we do more to help the transitional government in Somalia.

So I'm waiting for Secretary Clinton on that one.

I think that what we have seen in Afghanistan, over the past more than a year, is several different elements engaged in the fight against the government of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is one element. The Haqqani network is another. The Taliban is obviously a major element. And there have been some others as well: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his group.

These are kind of the major players, if you will. And I think it's fair to say that they are mutually supportive and that they at times collaborate. But we don't—I don't—I haven't seen any information that suggests that they are a unified fighting force or that they are following al Qaeda's direction.

They all have their own independent agenda but with, in their view, a common foe. And so I think that clearly al Qaeda is in touch with these different elements. And probably different elements help provide protection for al Qaeda. But I don't see that they're sort of firm allies or have a common agenda.

Q. Roughly how much of Afghanistan do you consider to be under Taliban control right now? And how can you convince so many Afghans that it's safe to vote, when the Marines are just showing up in their village seven days or so before the election?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, it's a pretty big country. And I think I would—I would remind—or just make the point that first of all, based on everything that I've heard, we are looking at an election in which there will perhaps be 13 or 1,400 more polling places than there were in 2004.

Several million more Afghans have registered to vote than in 2004. They're obviously holding an election in adverse circumstances. But I think these considerations are important.

They have significant—significantly larger number of both international and Afghan observers for these polling places. There is a tiered security arrangement. And so I think that the potential is there for a quite credible—quite credible election, and in all parts of the country.

I mean, I think that General McChrystal's view would be that Kabul is reasonably calm right now. There's more activity in both the west and in the north, but there—there are—there are individual provinces and districts where there has been an uptick in activity, but for the most part they've—they're not too bad.

So the real issue, the challenge is in Regional Command South and Regional Command East. And again, it differs from district to district in terms of what the security situation is. But I think that—I think that most of us here believe that there's ample opportunity for a quite credible election. Okay.

General Cartwright. I might just throw in—

Secretary Gates. Yes. Please.

General Cartwright. I mean, if you walk or move around the country, the other thing that you see now is, one, candidates making speeches, having rallies, posters all over the place, rallies absent the candidates and villages advocating one candidate or the other.

And so the openness of the activity right now is substantially different than anything we've seen in the past. And that's just a judgment on their part that the security's sufficient that they're going to go out and do that, but it is also a reflection of their confidence in the security.

And it's not—you know, it's not the same everywhere. Absolutely not. But by and large, you're seeing so much activity out there that you would associate with a political campaign, a democratic election, it's really startling when you walk around and watch this.

Could that be interrupted by violence? Sure. But right now, it's very shocking— at least, you know, having seen it before—how much openness there is in this campaign.

Secretary Gates. Okay. Thank you all.

President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Obama. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to say a few words about this week's election in Afghanistan. This was an important step forward in the Afghan people's effort to take control of their future, even as violent extremists are trying to stand in their way.

This election was run by the Afghan people. In fact, it was the first democratic election run by Afghans in over three decades. More than 30 presidential candidates and more than 3,000 provincial council candidates ran for office, including a record number of women. Some 6,000 polling stations were open around the country, and Afghan National Security Forces took the lead in providing security.

Over the last few days—and particularly yesterday—we've seen acts of violence and intimidation by the Taliban, and there may be more in the days to come. We knew that the Taliban would try to derail this election. Yet even in the face of this brutality, millions of Afghans exercised the right to choose their leaders and determine their own destiny. And as I watched the election, I was struck by their courage in the face of intimidation, and their dignity in the face of disorder.

There is a clear contrast between those who seek to control their future at the ballot box, and those who kill to prevent that from happening. Once again, extremists in Afghanistan have shown themselves willing to murder innocent Muslims—men, women and children—to advance their aims. But I believe that the future belongs to those who want to build—not those who want to destroy. And that is the future that was sought by the Afghans who went to the polls, and the Afghan National Security Forces who protected them.

The United States did not support any candidate in this election. Our only interest was the result fairly, accurately reflecting the will of the Afghan people, and that is what we will continue to support as the votes are counted, and we wait for the official results from the Afghan Independent Electoral Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission.

Meanwhile, we will continue to work with our Afghan partners to strengthen Afghan security, governance, and opportunity. Our goal is clear: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and their extremist allies. That goal will be achieved—and our troops will be able to come home—as Afghans continue to strengthen their own capacity, and take responsibility for their own future.

Our men and women in uniform are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan. So are the civilians who serve by their side. All of them are in our thoughts and prayers, as are their families back home. This is not a challenge that we asked for—it came to our shores when al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. But America, our allies and partners, and above all the Afghan people share a common interest in pursuing security, opportunity, and justice.

We look forward to renewing our partnership with the Afghan people as they move ahead under a new government. I want to again congratulate the Afghanistan people on carrying out this historic election, and wish them a blessed month as they come together to welcome the beginning of Ramadan.

Thanks very much, everybody.

Q. What about the hero's welcome in Libya, sir?

Q. Do you consider Libya a terrorist state, sir?

President Obama. I think it was highly objectionable.

Secretary Robert Gates was interviewed by Bloomberg News in Fort Worth, TX

Q. Mr. Secretary thank you for joining us to talk about defense spending, other issues as well, we appreciate very much.

Secretary Gates. My pleasure, happy to be here.

Q. Let me switch to Afghanistan if I could. News today General McChrystal, top U.S. NATO commander in Afghanistan, that he has submitted his latest assessment of the situation both to his higher ups, General Patraeus, ultimately it's going to land on your desk. Have you seen it yet?

Secretary Gates. I saw an early draft weeks ago. My impression is that it's changed quite a bit. I asked a number of questions when I met general McChrystal in Belgium, some additional issues that I asked him to look at. So I have not seen the finished assessment. I am in Fort Worth today but I expect to in the next day or two.

Q. There are reports out there that General McChrystal, even though it's not in this report, that he's going to come back to you and to the President ultimately and say we need more troops beyond the 68,000 that will be in place as of December. How are you going to consider that request if indeed it comes?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think first we all need to look at the assessment and see how he thinks things are going, what things are need and then we will turn our attention to whatever resource requirements he's put forward.

Q. You've been skeptical about the notion of committing more U.S. troops?

Secretary Gates. I—one of the questions I asked him to address in the assessment when I was in Belgium with him was the implications of significant additional forces in terms of the foreign footprint in Afghanistan, whether the Afghans will see this as us becoming more of an occupier or their partner and how do you differentiate those and how do you make sure you don't lose their confidence in us as their partner. And also, what are the implications with respect to Americanization of the war. I am confident he's going to address both of those in the assessment and we'll take a look at it.

Q. Are we winning in Afghanistan?

Secretary Gates. I think it's a mixed picture in Afghanistan. I think that there aren't too many people with too rosy a view of what's going on in Afghanistan. I think there are many challenges. But I think some of the gloom and doom is somewhat overdrawn as well. We have a significant Afghan army that is being grown, about 95,000. We're going to grow it to 134,000 and maybe larger than that depending on General McChrystal's recommendations. Our allies have 37,000 troops in Afghanistan now in addition to the troops we have. I think we've got our strategy is moving into the right place. The Afghans have had an election, however difficult that was in conditions of war. So I think there that are some positive developments but there is no question our casualties are up and there's no question we have a very tough fight in front of us, a lot of challenges.

Q. How much longer are you going to be in this job, sir?

Secretary Gates. That would be a mystery.

Q. That would be a mystery. We'll end on that note. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us here in Bloomberg, we appreciate it.

Secretary Gates. Thanks a lot.

Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen delivered these remarks in Arlington, VA

Secretary Gates. Good afternoon. I want to start today with an update on where we stand with General McChrystal's assessment on Afghanistan, and then turn things over to Admiral Mullen for his perspective.

First, some context. Soon after taking office, President Obama approved the deployment of some 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan to help cope with the anticipated Taliban spring offensive and to provide additional security for the Afghan elections last month. Our allies and partners also sent significant additional troops to provide for election security.

In late March, the president announced a comprehensive new civil, military and diplomatic strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda in order to prevent them from launching another major attack against our country.

A new military commander, General McChrystal, was appointed to implement the military component of the new strategy. When General McChrystal took command in June, I asked him to report back to me in about 60 days with his assessment of the security situation and his thinking on the implementation of the president's new strategy.

I received that report two days ago and informally forwarded a copy to the president for an initial read.

I've asked General Petraeus, the commander of Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chairman to provide me with their evaluation of the assessment and the situation in Afghanistan, and will send their views plus my own thoughts to the president early next week. I expect that any request for additional resources would follow after this process and be similarly discussed by the president's national-security team.

All of this is being done as part of a systematic, deliberative process designed to make sure the president receives the best military information and advice on the way ahead in Afghanistan. As I said earlier, what prompted my request for this assessment was the arrival of a new commander in Afghanistan, not any new information or perceived change in the situation on the ground. My request and General McChrystal's response both are intended to help us effectively implement the president's March strategy, not launch a new one.

Admiral?

Admiral Mullen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would just add a couple of thoughts. First, on process, as the secretary indicated, he's asked the chiefs and myself to review General McChrystal's initial assessment and provide our thoughts, our advice. The chiefs and I have already met twice in the tank this week to discuss it, and we're planning at least one more session later on. My intention is to wrap up our review by Friday.

Our job—and it's one we take very seriously—is to provide the secretary and the president our best military advice. And we're going to do that with a clear eye not only on the needs in Afghanistan but also the needs of the force in general and on our other security commitments around the globe.

Second, it's clear to me that General McChrystal has done his job as well, laying out for his chain of command the situation on the ground, as he sees it, and offering in frank and candid terms how he believes his forces can best accomplish the mission the president has assigned to him.

And that is what this whole thing is about: the mission assigned, the strategy we've been tasked to implement. There has been enormous focus on troop numbers and timelines lately, lots of conjecture, lots of speculation.

I understand the interest in those things, and it's legitimate. Those numbers represent real units, real people and real families. But the troop piece of this is just that. It's a piece, critical, but it's not total.

What's more important than the numbers of troops he may or may not ask for is how he intends to use them. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he intends to use those forces under his command to protect the Afghan people, to give them the security they need to reject the influence the Taliban seeks. Now, you've heard me talk for much of the last two years about Afghanistan. You know how much I remain concerned about the situation there. There is a sense of urgency. Time is not on our side.

I believe we understand that. And I believe we're going to regain the initiative, because we have a strategy. We have a new approach in implementing that strategy. And we have leaders on the ground who know the nature of the fight they are in, leaders who know that the other people and the other families who matter just as much, in this fight, are the Afghans themselves.

Our mission is to defeat al Qaeda and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven again. We cannot accomplish that alone. We'll need help from other agencies and other countries. But we will also need the support of the local population.

So in my view, the numbers that count most are the number of Afghans we protect. As one villager told a visiting U.S. lawmaker recently, security is the mother of all progress.

Q. You have—Secretary Gates, you've said repeatedly in the past that you're concerned about the size of our footprint in Afghanistan. But amongst—in the middle of all this talk of urgency, of—that we have to prove ourselves very quickly, are you changing your view on the size of that footprint as it becomes clear that General McChrystal's going to ask for more troops, perhaps as many as 25—

Secretary Gates. Well, I'm not going to speculate about what resources he's going to ask for. I would just point out that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has nearly doubled in the space of the last year. And I would say, giving due credit to our allies, the number of allied and partner troops has nearly doubled in the past year to 18 months. So there has been a significant increase, a major increase, just in the last few months.

I have expressed concern about the footprint. I have expressed concern, as the chairman referred to in his remarks, about impact on the force and other worldwide responsibilities. By the same token, I take seriously General McChrystal's point that the size of the imprint—of the footprint depends—is more—is—depends in significant measure on the nature of the footprint and the behavior of those troops and their attitudes and their interactions with the Afghans.

And if they interact with the Afghans, in a way that gives confidence to the Afghans that we're their partners and their allies, then the risks that I have been concerned about, about the footprint becoming too big and the Afghans seeing us in some role other than partners, I think, is mitigated.

But you know, I'm—I'm very open to—to—to the recommendations and certainly the perspective of General McChrystal.

Yeah.

Admiral Mullen. Can I just add a couple of thoughts on that?

One is that he—General McChrystal has placed great emphasis on reducing civilian casualties. And they have been dramatically reduced. He's placed great emphasis on literally how we travel throughout the country, in terms of being mindful of those citizens that live there.

And—and those kinds of things that he considers strategic vulnerabilities, to our ability to focus on the people and to partner, as the secretary has described; he's made those changes since he's arrived. And those were significant steps in the right direction.

Q. Can you talk about how this will work, General McChrystal's request or report to you, for troops, and whether he wants a troop increase? Will you be presented with options? Because I think in the end, if General McChrystal says, I need more troops, how can you turn him down? Or just give us a sense of that and how this will be presented, in what way?

Secretary Gates. Well, I—I—assuming that he makes some sort of a request, it would be my expectation that we would handle it very much as we have handled every other request for resources previously, in both Iran and Afghanistan, at least since I became secretary.

His recommendations or alternative courses of action would—would follow the chain of command. They will go to General Petraeus, as the commander of Central Command, who will offer his view.

That will then be forwarded to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chairman. And they will evaluate it and add their point of view. And I will then add mine and provide that to the president.

There will be a discussion in the interagency and a debate about the pros and cons of various things. And I would tell you—and I'll just use— I'll use the Iraq security situation as an example—a lot happens in this dialogue up and down the chain of command.

And I really do invite the chairman to add in when I'm done here.

When General Odierno came in with his original timelines on what he—where he felt the risk was acceptable to him, in terms of when we would end the combat—the presence of combat units in Iraq—there was a dialogue back and forth between General Odierno and General Petraeus and between him and the chiefs. And there emerged a consensus that we probably could take somewhat more risk than general Odierno originally had been comfortable with. So that's how we moved from General Odierno's original proposal of December 2010 to August of 2010.

I expect if there is a recommendation from General McChrystal, there will be the same kind of dialogue that we have had repeatedly with respect to Iraq, in the chain of command and then as it moves to the interagency.

Admiral Mullen. We sat earlier this week—I mean the chiefs and General Petraeus and General McChrystal—to really have that kind of dialogue and for us to really understand it from his perspective. But at our level and at General Petraeus's level—he's got a region. It's not just about Afghanistan. He's got—we have lots of troops in Iraq, and there are challenges and tension between those two theaters in terms of troop distribution.

And then the chiefs have a global responsibility that certainly includes the health of the force.

And so, that doesn't mean that General McChrystal or General Petraeus don't consider that, but that's really our responsibility to focus on that and to weave that into the overall discussion, and then make a recommendation based on how we see where General McChrystal is and how we see the overall mission.

And certainly, it's going to include risks, and risks associated with various options, you know, if we get to that point. We're just not there yet. We really are trying to understand both the assessment and then there will be a resource piece of this which will follow.

Q. (Inaudible)—take part in the Iraq war.

Secretary Gates. I think there is a real mistake—I think it is a real mistake to— to compare Iraq and Afghanistan, and I see that at lot. And I think that there are some—there are real limits to analogies between the two, in a number of different ways. For example, Iraq has had a very strong central government for a very long time. That is not the case with Afghanistan. And that is a huge difference between the two.

So again, as I told Elizabeth, I think that the footprint issue can cut several different directions. I have been concerned about the size of it, and I would expect those concerns to be addressed. That's one of the things that I asked—when we were in Belgium, that I asked General McChrystal specifically to address.

Q. Well, then, Mr. Secretary, specifically on Afghanistan, then, what is the genesis of your concern about the footprint?

Secretary Gates. History. And as a number of articles have pointed out, where foreign forces have had a large footprint and failed in no small part has been because the Afghans concluded they were there for their own imperial interests, and not there for the interests of the Afghan people.

So how the footprint fits into this, as General McChrystal suggested, I think also has to take into account how the Afghan people look at that presence. And if they—and this has been my issue, something that I've worried about ever since I took this job—first, that we weren't paying enough attention to Afghanistan, but second, that trying to figure out is there a—is there a tipping point where the Afghans begin to see us as part of the problem—a part of their problem rather than part of their solution?

I think that the way that the—the approach that General McChrystal has taken in terms of civilian casualties and in terms of the way we—our troops interact with the Afghans has given us a greater margin of error in that respect, because I think it does affect the way the Afghans look at our troops.

Q. And if the new—could I follow? And if the new mission is to protect the Afghan people, isn't that, by its very definition, very manpower-intensive?

Admiral Mullen. It—and it is actually General McChrystal's implementation of the new strategy that focuses so heavily on the people. And it is clearly a requirement to be distributed throughout the country, obviously, where the people are, and then the need, as we build up the Afghan security forces over time, certainly to hand that off to them.

But it is—it is very direct, very face-to-face, and I think we understand that. He has made that literally job one for our forces since he's taken command.

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Gates. Yeah.

Q. I'd like to get your response to George Will's column, in which he says this week it's time for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan. He says—he writes, “America should do only what can be done from offshore using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces.” He goes on to say we should just focus on the 1,500-mile border with Pakistan. Is it time to get out of Afghanistan, given your concerns about footprint? How do you respond to that?

Secretary Gates. Well, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Will, but in this case I do disagree with him. I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan. And I think that the notion that you can conduct a purely counterterrorist kind of campaign and do it from a distance simply does not accord with reality.

The reality is that even if you want to focus on counterterrorism, you cannot do that successfully without local law enforcement, without internal security, without intelligence. And the way—and General McChrystal probably knows more about counterterrorism than anybody in or out of uniform, and the way he has been so successful has been an iterative process in which we have killed or captured terrorists, exploited on the ground what we found and then used that for the next target.

The notion that you can somehow have a campaign that focuses solely on the border and has no interaction with local Afghans along that border or elsewhere in the country, for that matter, or assume that the status quo in Afghanistan would not— that there cannot be a status quo in Kabul, that if you just walk away, that the situation there won't deteriorate, I think is unrealistic.

Admiral Mullen. The only thing I'd say about the—that kind of approach is, there's no way to defeat al Qaeda, which is the mission, with just that approach. You can't do it remotely, and you can't do it from offshore, for some of the reasons that the secretary laid out.

And so again, I certainly don't think it's time to leave. We've got new leadership, new strategy, resources moving in. And I think this approach has great potential, but it's going to take some time to start to turn this.

Q. And just to follow up, the—you talk about General McChrystal's concern about how U.S. forces are perceived by the Afghans.

In light of the revelations of what was occurring at the U.S. embassy with this guard group that was having parties— photographs have now come out showing behavior that would be offensive to most Muslims—what do you think should be done about that situation at the embassy?

Secretary Gates. Well, I won't—I don't think we have the information to be able to say what ought to be done. But if those allegations are true, those activities are not just offensive to Afghans and Muslims; they're offensive to us and inexcusable. Tony.

Q. Can I get your reaction to remarks yesterday by the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin? He suggested that Russia wants to be in the planning strategy of Afghanistan. What's your reaction to that, given the history of Russia in Afghanistan—or the then-Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think that— first of all, I think the Russians have a very clear interest in the success of our endeavor in Afghanistan. They're very worried not only about violent extremists but also the flow of narcotics into Russia coming out of Afghanistan.

The Russians have been cooperative and helpful, in terms of our northern distribution network. And we welcome that.

And—and I think that both on a bilateral basis and through the U.S.—through the NATO-Russia Council, there—there are ample opportunities for a dialogue and learning from one another.

Q. I wanted to follow up on polling concerns, about perhaps falling public support and mounting concerns on the Hill. One of the reasons that's cited for that, as you'll well know, is not just casualties but that there's still not a strong sense, among the American people, of what the mission there is.

The president has defined it. But I wonder whether you all could speak to that and also whether General McChrystal's report this week shed any new light, in terms of what exactly the military needs to achieve in the next 12 to 18—

Secretary Gates. Let me address that and then invite the admiral. I think that it's important to—to keep our perspective. The fact is that 9/11 represented the first foreign-based attack on the Continental United States, with significant casualties, since the War of 1812.

That attack emanated from Afghanistan under Taliban rule. The Taliban did not just provide a safe haven for al Qaeda. They actively cooperated and collaborated with al Qaeda. They provided a worldwide base of operations for al Qaeda.

So it seems to me that we're in Afghanistan less for nation- building than we are in giving the Afghan state the capacity to oppose these—to oppose al Qaeda, to oppose the use of their territory by other violent extremists, and for them to have that capacity that can be sustained over a period of time.

The reality is, terrorists lurk in a number of countries. But the problem is manageable, because the governments of most countries are opposed to their activities and have the intelligence, law enforcement and internal security capabilities to sustain that opposition and to be effective.

It seems to me that in the context of the president's goal of disrupting, dismantling and destroying al Qaeda, we seek an Afghanistan that is our partner in that endeavor and that can sustain that endeavor after we're gone.

Admiral Mullen. My only comment is that the intelligence continues to support that al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates, one of whom are the Taliban, very specifically still target this country, our people, as well as other Western countries. That has not abated and it is not going to go away, based on anything that I've seen. And what the secretary has described is they thrive in ungoverned spaces.

Q. Ambassador Holbrooke has said that progress—asked what progress would be in Afghanistan, he said, “Well, we'll know it when we see it.” Can both of you address more specifically, how do you measure progress on this goal of defeating or dismantling al Qaeda?

And as a part of that, is denying a safe haven in Pakistan part of this mission as well, or removing the safe haven that some would say is thriving there now?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think, first of all, one of the most significant new elements of the president's strategy that he announced at the end of March was in fact recognition that this is a regional concern, a regional problem. And the chairman has spoken often about the Pakistani part of this. And he mentioned earlier in this—in this press availability that this is a piece that is independent, really, of—that this is not part of General McChrystal's writ, if you will, but it is certainly an integral part of the president's overall strategy and our integrated civilian-military approach. So I think that—I think we do take that into account.

Admiral Mullen. And I mean—

Q. Are we making progress?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, the administration has developed—let me answer that in two ways. The administration has developed measures of effectiveness. Those have been shared with staff on the Hill. They will be shared with members, when the members come back next week. The deadline to have those completed is, I think, September 24th. And those—and my view has been, and I assume that it's the case, that those that are unclassified will be made public.

So one of the things—and we have—we started this ourselves; this is not something imposed by the Congress. This is something so we can evaluate how we think we're doing and not keep rolling our goals in front of us, but in fact try and genuinely measure whether we're— whether our approach is making headway or not. And I think that that's a very important thing.

But I think—I think that in this one respect there is a comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is, success is the Afghan national security forces assuming a greater and greater role in controlling and protecting the—their own territory as we recede into an advisory capacity and ultimately withdraw.

Admiral Mullen. I would only ask to specifically—or say specifically with respect to the safe haven, the current safe haven in Pakistan, I think the way we get at that is through a growing and sustained and trusted partnership with Pakistan.

And one of the ways I measure progress is if I look at Pakistan over the last 12 months and the success of their Frontier Corps, the success of their military in terms of its operations in Swat and the movement in that direction to address the extremists in their own country, and that kind of continuing pressure that eventually will provide security for their own people so that, in fact, their own people— who now protect al Qaeda—turn them out, and that applied—sort of almost a pincer approach with pressure from the Afghanistan side. And that's going to take some time to create that.

But I think strategically we know how to get that done.

Q. Thank you.

Secretary Robert Gates was interviewed by Al Jazeera in Arlington, VA

Q. Mr. Secretary, on behalf of Al Jazeera network, we're absolutely delighted to be here in the Pentagon doing this interview with you. Thank you for your time.

There are obviously as you know rumblings of discontent, among Americans, about what's going on in Afghanistan. How much is that of a concern to you personally as the secretary of Defense?

Secretary Gates. Americans know that our country has been at war for a number of years, ever since we were attacked in 2001. And obviously we've lost a lot of our young men and women in combat, not to mention the casualties in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11th.

And so there is a certain war-weariness on the part of the American people. But by the same token, I believe that they and members of our Congress vividly remember that it was from Afghanistan that the attack on us was launched and that the Taliban did not just provide a safe haven for al Qaeda but actively cooperated with them, colluded with them and provided them with a worldwide base of operations.

And so I think the American people know that we have to work with the Afghan government and the Afghan people so that they can establish control over their own territory and prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for al Qaeda in the future.

I mean, the reality is also that al Qaeda has killed many more Muslims than it has Americans and Europeans and others. And so this is a—this is a challenge we all face, and I—I'm confident that the American people will sustain their commitment to help the Afghan people.

Secretary Gates. I think it's a real problem, and General McChrystal believes it's a real problem.

Clearly we regret any loss of innocent life in Afghanistan, and I've addressed this issue while in Afghanistan, as well as here in the United States. And one of the central themes of General McChrystal's new approach in Afghanistan is significant change in our tactical approach to try and minimize the number of innocent civilians who are killed. So he has changed the rules in terms of the use of airpower. He has changed the rules we are—he has issued a tactical directive that our convoys obey Afghan traffic laws and in fact that our troops take some additional risk to avoid—to themselves to avoid innocent Afghan casualties.

Part of the challenge here is that the Taliban actively target innocent civilians, and they also create circumstances where they mingle among innocent civilians and they make it very difficult. And they are willing to put the innocent civilians at risk and—but we are trying to figure out new tactics that minimize this. But it is a challenge.

The—central to the success of the 42 nations that are trying to help the Afghan people and government at this point is that the Afghan people continue to believe that we are their friends, we are their partners, and we are there to help them. And so civilian casualties are a problem for us, and we are doing everything conceivable to try and avoid them.

Q. Now when you say that the Afghan people continue to think of the U.S. military as their friends in Afghanistan, the flip side of the coin is that there has been increasing support among the Afghans for the Taliban.

And that has enabled the Taliban to make a lot of the gains that we hear about, military gains, including a marked improvement in the tactics they use against the U.S. military.

Now you're saying that the Afghan people continue to support the United States.

Secretary Gates. I think that—I think based on the latest polling that we have nationwide, in Afghanistan, fewer than 10 percent of the people support the Taliban. The Taliban's approach is one principally of intimidation of villagers and others. And the Afghans don't want to live under those circumstances.

They don't want to live under the Taliban rule again. And while they may not— while they may not actively support the United States, neither do they support the Taliban. What—you asked me earlier about the Americans being—growing weary of the war.

The Afghan people have been at war for over 30 years. And what they want is peace and security. And over time, we and all of the international community with us, along with the Afghan security forces, are in a position to try and bring that to them.

Q. Talking of 30 years of war in Afghanistan, the Afghans are renowned for being very hostile to foreign powers being in Afghanistan. We've seen that with the British, saw it with the Soviets. And to some extent, we are seeing it with the U.S.

Given all the things that you say the United States is doing, to explain to the Afghans that the United States military is there to help them, do you think that holds water in the eyes of the majority of Afghans, knowing their historical rejection of foreign powers in their country?

Secretary Gates. I think that the historical rejection of foreign powers has been because the Afghan people have come to see those powers, whether it's Britain or the Soviet Union or anyone else, as being there for their own imperial interests rather than being there in the interests of the Afghan people.

We have no interest in a permanent presence in Afghanistan. We have no interest in bases in Afghanistan. What our principal interest is in, is in giving Afghanistan the capacity to protect its own people and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a center of violent extremists again. And then we'll leave.

And I think that's an important message from us to the Afghan people. We want to give them the capacity to protect their own security and—as well as the security of other nations around the world from threats emanating from Afghanistan. And then we'll be gone.

Q. Sir, in the time left in this segment, I would like to ask you about the shenanigans with the AP over the publication of the picture of the dead U.S. Marine.

That puts you in a difficult position, to accuse a U.S. official of infringing or violating freedom of expression, doesn't it?

Secretary Gates. I—I have—in the letter that I sent, to the head of the Associated Press, I said this is not a matter of law, this is not a matter of policy, there's not a constitutional issue. This is a question of judgment and common decency and out of respect for the family.

What I asked was that they defer to the wishes of the family that these—that these pictures of their maimed and stricken child not be provided to newspapers all over the United States. They chose to go ahead and do it anyway.

Q. And you're concerned that this may have been interpreted as an infringement on freedom of the—

Secretary Gates. No, I don't think— I've—there's no question—there's no issue of infringement of the freedom of the press whatsoever. I was asking them— I didn't pressure them. I didn't threaten them. All I did was ask them. In fact, the words that I used with the head of the Associated Press was that I beg you to defer to the wishes of the father of this Marine. That's all I ask. That's not an infringement of the freedom of the press. That's an appeal to common decency.

Q. Now, given the difficulties that the Pakistani civilian governments, successive civilian governments, have had, how dependable from the U.S. point of view do you think is the current civilian government in Pakistan, in terms of being able to deal not only with the volatility of Pakistan but with the regional volatility?

Afghanistan is one example. India is the other example.

Secretary Gates. I think if you look back 15 or 16 months, the Pakistani government has performed admirably. No one, I think, would have predicted the political consensus that has emerged in Pakistan, in terms of the effort to take on these violent extremists in the North West Frontier Province, in the FATA and in that area.

I think people would not have predicted the success of the Pakistani army. I think people would not have predicted the success in Pakistan—Pakistanis—the Pakistani government's effective dealing with internally displaced persons, as a result of military operations, and how many of them have returned to Swat, and how effective the Pakistani government has been in this respect.

So all of that is simply to say, I believe that the Pakistani government, both the civilian side and the military side, have performed better than almost anyone's expectations, in the region or in this country or elsewhere. And we are very impressed by that. And we are prepared to be helpful, to help the Pakistanis, in any way we can.

Q. Now, basically, what you're saying— and correct me if I'm wrong—the implication of what you're saying is that the United States will not do again what it did after the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which is to cut loose and leave, leaving the regional players to fend for themselves, undermining the credibility of the United States in that part of Asia.

Secretary Gates. I think that's absolutely right. I think that—and I have to say, I was in the American government at the time we did that, and it was a serious strategic mistake. As soon as the Soviets left Afghanistan, we turned our backs on Afghanistan, and we did not cultivate our relationship with the Pakistanis properly. And so I think we gave rise to doubts in the region about whether we are prepared to stay there and be their partner on a continuing basis. And I believe we have learned our lesson and that both Afghanistan and Pakistan can count on us for the long term.

Q. And in terms of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, you are absolutely, categorically sure that there is no risk that they may fall into the wrong hands, given the pressures that the Taliban in Afghanistan are exerting not just on the Pakistanis but also on the United States in Pakistan?

Secretary Gates. I'm quite comfortable that the security arrangements for the Pakistani nuclear capabilities are sufficient and adequate.

Q. What sort of guarantees do you have to cover that?

Secretary Gates. Well, I would say it's based both on our own understanding of the security arrangements that the Pakistanis have for their weapons and their capabilities in their laboratories and so on, but also the assurances that we have been given by the Pakistanis.

Q. Were you baffled by the—President Obama's envoy, Richard Holbrooke, when he was asked about progress and how he would measure progress and he said, “We'll know it when we see it”?

Secretary Gates. I probably would have answered the question differently.

Q. How would you have answered it?

Secretary Gates. I would have answered it: I believe that success or progress will be as—when we see the Afghan national security forces, the army and the police, assuming a greater and greater role in protecting the—in security operations protecting Afghanistan and the Afghan people, so that we can recede first into an advisory role and then leave altogether.

So in a way it's somewhat comparable to the situation in Iraq, where we have— where our role has become less and less prominent, where the Iraqis have taken a more and more prominent role in protecting their own security. And I think that that's how we will measure—be able to measure—one way we will be able to measure success in Afghanistan is as we see the Afghan security forces taking a more and more prominent and leading role in protecting their own security.

Q. And after you leave, my understanding is that President Obama pledged that the United States will not build any permanent military bases in Iraq. Is that pledge—does that pledge still stand?

Secretary Gates. Absolutely.

Q. Now, how do you define permanent? Because bases in Germany, they've been there for about 60 years now; in Korea for a similar period of time. How do you define permanent? How do you define temporary?

Secretary Gates. Temporary is based on the fact that another part of this agreement is that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

That is the agreement that we have with the Iraqi government. All U.S. forces. No bases. No forces. That's the—

Q. Unless the Iraqis ask you to stay longer.

Secretary Gates. Unless there is some new agreement or some new negotiation, which would clearly be on Iraqi terms. But we will not have any permanent bases in Iraq. We have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq. And we are now planning on withdrawing all American military forces by the end of 2011.

Q. Sir, the issue of Iran and Israel has obviously and is rattling a lot of countries in the region. The Israelis, the gulf states, at least the governments who seem to be thinking more and more about buying more and more weapons.

And indeed there have been some sales authorized by the United States government. Some estimates for example put the weapons packages, to the gulf states and Israel, at about $100 billion.

How much substance is there to that?

Secretary Gates. Well, that figure sounds very high to me.

But I think—I think there's a central question or a central point here to be made. And it has to do with both our friends and allies in the region, our Arab friends and allies, as well as the Iranian nuclear program. And that is, one of the pathways to getting the Iranians to change their approach, on the nuclear issue, is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardize their security, not enhance it.

And so the more that our Arab friends and allies can strengthen their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their cooperation both with each other and with us, I think, sends the signal to the Iranians that this path that they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it.

And so that's one of the reasons why I think our relationship with these countries and our security cooperation with them is so important.

Q. Now, I mentioned $100 billion. And you said that that doesn't sound right. What sounds right to you as a figure?

Secretary Gates. I honestly don't know.

Q. But there are a lot of weapons being asked for by countries in the region.

Secretary Gates. We have a very broad foreign military sales program and obviously with most of our friends and allies out there. But the arrangements that are being negotiated right now; I just honestly don't know the cumulative total.

Q. Sir, I've run out of time, but there's one last issue that I would like to raise with you, with your permission, and that is the relations between the United States and Latin America. As you know, there's been a lot of angry noises coming out of Latin America over the issue of U.S. bases in Colombia. How much of a problem is the issue of U.S. bases in Colombia to the United States and to its relations with Latin America?

Secretary Gates. I think it's an issue that's being exploited by certain governments down there, such as the Venezuelan government. I think, for most of the continent, it's not a problem.

These are not American bases. This is a cooperative arrangement negotiated with the government of Colombia for counternarcotics purposes. That's all it is, nothing more. No permanent U.S. base—no U.S. base at all—but our use of Colombian facilities in cooperation with the Colombians in the counternarcotics arena.

Q. But doesn't it concern you that even somebody like President Lula of Brazil, who is not exactly renowned for being over-vocal in his criticism of the United States, has actually been quite vocal recently in terms of criticizing what is described by President Chavez, for example, of Venezuela, as you said, as belligerent intentions on the part of the United States in Latin America?

Secretary Gates. Well, there clearly are not belligerent intentions on the part of the United States. And I believe that when the other governments that are concerned in Latin—that may be concerned in South America fully understand the nature of the cooperation agreement with the Colombians, they will understand that this is a very limited arrangement, tightly focused on counternarcotics.

Q. Mr. Gates, thank you so very much. There were a lot of other topics that we would have liked to raise with you. We ran out of time. We're extremely grateful for the time that you've given us. Thank you.

Secretary Gates. Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Dipu Moni delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Good afternoon and let me once again welcome Foreign Minister Moni to Washington. I'm very pleased that she was able, along with her husband, to attend our Iftar dinner last night. And I'm delighted to have this opportunity to discuss in depth the issues that are of concern to both of our countries.

As a country with a strong secular and democratic heritage, a record of respect for women, a Muslim majority population, Bangladesh embodies the promise that President Obama spoke of in Cairo. I remember when I visited Bangladesh in the 1990s, and I met many dynamic women in positions of responsibility, and I saw the way that pioneering microcredit projects really invented in Bangladesh— especially through the Grameen Bank— helped women living in poverty gain self-sufficiency and offered them a better life.

I saw the government's efforts to increase access to education for young girls. I saw Muslim and Hindu women sitting down together to talk about their countries' future. I was very impressed by the commitment I saw to empowering women, for which Bangladesh has long been known. And of course, it is further emphasized by Dr. Moni's appointment as the country's first woman foreign minister. So I am extremely pleased to have her as my counterpart.

And I'm also proud to say that the partnership between our two countries is strong and growing stronger. We are united by shared values, common interests, and a commitment to work together to strengthen democracy, promote economic development, deny space to terrorists, and create a more peaceful and prosperous future.

This is an exciting time for Bangladesh. The December parliamentary elections were widely viewed as the freest and fairest in the country's history. Bangladeshis now have the opportunity to build on this success, strengthen their democratic institutions, and come together around an agenda that the prime minister has set for the future. And the United States stands ready to work with Bangladesh. And we will work to enhance economic opportunities. The foreign minister and I discussed the possibility of a bilateral trade and investment framework agreement. That would make it easier for U.S. companies and investors to expand their activities in Bangladesh and increase trade.

We discussed the ways that growing and increasingly successful Bangladeshi citizens who come to the United States to comprise a diaspora community can help to spur development and opportunity. Bangladeshi Americans have contributed so much to the culture and prosperity of our country, and I know they are eager to do more of their—for their country of ori gin.

I thanked the foreign minister for Bangladesh's leadership on a range of regional and global issues, including efforts to combat violent extremism, provide peacekeeping forces in trouble spots around the world, enhance food security and global health, address the threat of climate change, which is especially important for Bangladesh's survival.

Now, President Obama and I look forward to discussing these issues further next week in New York at the United Nations General Assembly. We are committed, Madame Minister, to work with you, with your government, and with the people of Bangladesh for a brighter future. Thank you very much.

Foreign Minister Moni. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Secretary, for receiving me and my delegation. We are truly honored. Meeting you is always a pleasure. You and President Obama are household names in Bangladesh. Our people fondly recall your visit to Bangladesh and the extraordinary love you have shown for Bangladesh. We have always been encouraged by your wisdom and dynamism. The leadership you have been providing since your resumption of office as the Secretary of State of this great nation has inspired great hopes around the world, particularly among women. As the first woman foreign minister of my country, I consider it my very special privilege to have this opportunity of meeting you here at the State Department.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have had very substantive and fruitful discussions with Secretary of State Mrs. Hillary Clinton on issues of mutual interest. We attach great importance to our relations with the United States. We consider the U.S. as our close friend and partner. During our talks today, I have reiterated our government's commitment to further strengthening our relations.

You know that we had an election last December which was widely acclaimed as free, fair, and credible. The election has set a high standard not only for Bangladesh, but also for other democratic countries in South Asia and elsewhere. In this task, we have consistently received support from the United States. The U.S. Government, the Congress, and the people of this great country has always stood by us in support of our democratic cause. I have taken the opportunity to express to Secretary Clinton our sincere appreciation for the support.

I have also briefed the Secretary about the vision of our new government, which, under the dynamic leadership of our prime minister Sheikh Hasina, is committed to bringing change. Our resolve is to ensure rule under the constitution of—and the law, good governance, to protect the inclusive and the pluralist nature of our society, promote women's empowerment, opportunities for the young and the disadvantaged. Our goal is to ensure a level of socioeconomic development that would elevate Bangladesh to a middle-income country by 2021, which will coincide with 50 years of our independence.

This is not going to be an easy task, and we cannot do this alone. We need support and assistance from our friends, particularly from the United States. I have discussed with Secretary Clinton the various areas of cooperation between our two countries, including enhanced trade opportunities, U.S. investment in Bangladesh, and cooperation in the area of counterterrorism and debt relief for Bangladesh.

With regard to trade, I especially requested for duty-free and quota-free access for Bangladeshi products into the U.S. market. We have also discussed about the social and human rights related issues. I sought her cooperation in deporting the killers of the father of the nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, some of whom have reportedly been living in the U.S.

We have also discussed regional and international issues, particularly the issues of climate change and the current global financial crisis. I briefed her on the adverse impact of the climate change on vulnerable countries such as Bangladesh and stressed the need for collective action to cope with the challenge. I also drew her attention to the increased cost of development endeavors due to climate change, and underscored the need for developed countries to assist in adaptation and mitigation.

On the global financial crisis, we agreed that the challenges cannot be resolved by any single country and that there is need for concerted action. I apprised her about the negative impact of the crisis on Bangladesh and the need for addressing our concerns by the international community.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I have just said, ours had been a very substantive and fruitful meeting. We intend to continue our dialogue and build on the discussions we have had today. I look forward to receiving Secretary Clinton in Bangladesh soon. I thank you.

Q. Yes. Arshad Mahmud from bdnews24.com. Thank you, Madame Secretary, and thank you, Foreign Minister Moni. You have—both of you have said that you discussed substantive issues, and Bangladesh has this critical issue of—its seeking—its U.S. market— for duty-free access to the U.S. market, and also the Millennium Challenge— inclusion into Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Could you please give us some specific things that you have discussed regarding this—the issues that I have just said? And have you set any goals, say, for instance, if you go to Bangladesh in the next two years or if she comes back here, so that we can measure to what extent the relationship has gone? And how can you measure that? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Well, we discussed both the issues along with many others in a very comprehensive discussion about the concerns that Bangladesh and the United States share. Certainly with respect to the Millennium Challenge Account, the foreign minister recognized that circumstances have changed with the election of a new government in December, about the same time that our Administration was elected. We are both young administrations and working hard to get established and proceed on the numerous goals that we share.

But we will certainly begin a conversation, with no guarantees, because, as you know, the Millennium Challenge Account is not only a very competitive process to get to a compact that many nations are competing for, but it is one that takes time. And so we will begin to look into that and see how that can proceed.

With respect to the foreign minister's very clear request for duty-free access, we have a vibrant trade relationship now, and it has been growing, and we look forward to continuing to grow that trade. We did specifically talk about the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, which has been discussed between our two governments—your trade officials along with our trade representative.

Bangladesh currently receives preferential tariff treatment for hundreds of products through the generalized system of preferences, and we're going to work to see how Bangladesh can diversify its exports based on what already exists, because we now believe we have a government with whom we can really explore these questions. And it obviously is up to Congress if anything further is decided, but we're going to do everything we can within the existing framework and where we have authority in the Executive Branch to try to enhance our bilateral relationship.

Q. You want to add anything to that?

Foreign Minister Moni. Well, we are working together, and as she has mentioned, our two administrations, they are not just young, they are also with common aspirations. And we believe that we can work together very well and address all these issues, and I believe that we'll be able to cooperate much more.

Moderator. We'll take one more question. Lachlan Carmichael with AFP.

Q. Switching to East Asia, do you really think it will be business as usual with the new Japanese Government? I mean, Prime Minister Hatoyama today said he wants a less subservient role with the United States. Also, there is people in his party that want to reduce the U.S. military presence there. And I understand the defense minister today said he wants to end the Afghan refueling mission when it comes up for renewal in January. That sounds like some tough times ahead.

Secretary Clinton. Well, Lachlan, I don't see it that way. I think that we've already begun intensive consultations with the new Japanese Government. It was Mario Cuomo who famously said, “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” And I think that there is a lot of work to be done on both of our sides to develop some understanding and build relation ships.

This is a new government for Japan. It's a change which is dramatic, given the 50 years of LDP governmental leadership. But I am very confident that the strength of our relationship and our alliance will stand the test of any political changes, although there will be new policies and new approaches. I think that's only to be expected.

We have a new government in Bangladesh that is creating a commitment to institutionalizing democracy, doing things differently than its predecessor did. We have a new government in Japan. But the United States remains committed to Asia. We remain committed to our relationship with Japan. And in the weeks to come, we'll be working together, sitting across from tables having meals, meeting each other, learning about the concerns that the new government might have, and we'll be addressing them.

Q. Can you give us some details of Kurt Campbell's talks?

Secretary Clinton. Well, you'll have to ask the Assistant Secretary. But he and a number of people within this Department, within the Defense Department, within the White House and other agencies of our government, have been engaging intensively in the last weeks. Kurt Campbell and others within the State Department know some of the people who are in the new government, so they're not totally new; they're just new in the capacity that they now enjoy.

So I'm very relaxed and optimistic that the strength of our relationship will be as positive as it ever has been and our core values remain unchanged. But every government has the right to change policies. The Obama Administration is changing policies from the prior administration, but it doesn't in any way undermine our core values and our national security interests, and I don't see that happening here.

Thank you all very much.

Foreign Minister Moni. Thank you.

Q. Madame Secretary, do you (inaudible) President Musharraf's comments that U.S. aid was used (inaudible) India (inaudible) military rather than fighting the global war on terrorism?

Secretary Clinton. Well, we'll get back to you on that.

Q. (Inaudible.) Thank you.

On Afghanistan and Pakistan

In today's meeting, the President engaged his national security team in a candid assessment of the progress that has been made and the challenges we still face in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the President's strategy was announced in March. As a part of this review, the President will consult with his national security team, including his military commanders, civilian leadership, and Ambassadors in the region. He will also consult closely with our Allies and with the United States Congress.

As the U.S. aggressively confronts al Qaeda and its leadership around the world, the President has set a clear goal in Afghanistan: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and their extremist allies. When it come to decisions as important as keeping this country safe and putting our troops into harm's way, the President has made it clear that he will rigorously assess our progress. That is why he held this meeting today and will take the next several weeks to review our strategy.

This was the second of five scheduled intensive sessions with National Security Council as well as field commanders and regional ambassadors. The President has also directed his inter-agency team to provide regular consultation sessions with Congress, during this period, starting with Gen. Jones' briefing of all U.S. Senators this evening.

The President will next meet with his national security team to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan one week from today, October 7th at the White House.