President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Obama. Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory—hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda—an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort.

We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must—and we will—remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not—and never will be— at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C.

Secretary Gates. The Air Force—you— are playing a critical role in the fight in Afghanistan, as you have in Iraq. Almost all of you are either just back from a deployment or are headed there soon. So I wanted to come here and thank you for your service, for your sacrifice, and also to ask you to—each of you to thank your families for their support to you. Only their support makes possible your service.

Last year there were 37,000 close-air support missions in Afghanistan, 9,700 medical extractions. There are a lot of people on the ground in Afghanistan today who are alive because of airmen like you and those who support those pilots.

Nor have I forgotten that I was in the White House as deputy national security adviser when the first President Bush sent the Air Force to war in Iraq in January of 1991. So for all practical purposes, the United States Air Force has been at war for 20 years.

I've had no greater honor in my life than to serve and to lead the men and women of the United States armed forces. And I will tell you it's about the only part of the job I'll miss.

Q. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Sergeant Seabrook with the 4th Operations Group Intelligence. With the lack of involvement of our Southwest Asia partners with the location and capture of Osama bin Laden, has it called into question their commitment to the level of support we're providing and the level of support they provide to our mission there? And is it going to reduce the—or affect the president's decision as to whether we reduce forces?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think in terms of the impact of the killing of Osama bin Laden, in terms of the situation in Afghanistan, I think that there is a possibility that it could be a game changer. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar had a very close personal relationship. And there are others in the Taliban who have felt betrayed by al-Qaida, that it was because of al-Qaida's attack on the United States that the Taliban got thrown out of Afghanistan. So we'll have to see what that relationship looks like.

Frankly, I think it's too early to make a judgment in terms of the impact inside Afghanistan, but I think in six months or so we'll probably know if it's made a difference.

You know, our relationships with a number of countries out there are what I would gently refer to as complex. And just to take Pakistan as an example, if you had told me two and a half years ago that Pakistan would have 140,000 troops in the west, pulled from the Indian border, that they would have suffered thousands of casualties in the war in the FATA (Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and elsewhere, that they would have driven the Taliban and al-Qaida out of South Waziristan and Swat, I'd have said that's not going to happen. But it has.

They allow our—huge percentage of our support and sustenance comes through Pakistan, both ground and air. And those have—those lines of communication have stayed open. They tinker with them every now and then just to get our attention, but they've really stayed open. And even with the development of the Northern Distribution Network, they're still vital to us.

At the same time, there's no question that they hedge their bets. Their view is that we have abandoned them four times in the last 45 years. And they're still not sure we're going to stay in the region. They saw us leave after the Soviets were thrown out of Afghanistan in 1989, 1988. And they're not confident we won't leave again when we've accomplished our mission in Afghanistan.

So we just have to keep working at it, and on both sides. I will tell you that the relationship cross border in terms of going after people has gotten steadily better in terms of being the hammer and the anvil with the Pakistanis being active on one side and our forces and the Afghan forces on the other.

So I would say it's a relationship we just have to keep working at.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your frank answer.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Captain Jennifer Morton from the 336th Fighter Squadron here at Seymour.

Now that we're pulling out of Afghanistan starting in July, do you see our focus in the military moving to any other area of operation? And if so, where?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think it remains to be seen, first of all, whether we will have a continuing presence in Iraq after the end of December. I think there's a general feeling among many Iraqi leaders that a continued presence is necessary. But at the same time, it's a heavy political lift for them. And whether they can come together and get agreement on a new agreement with us that would keep some of us there for training and for counterterrorism and providing air defense and so on, I think we just—we just have to wait and see.

We will begin the drawdown in Afghanistan in July. But at the same time, we recognize—and it was recognized at the NATO summit last fall in Lisbon that we don't expect the transition to Afghan security lead to be completed until the end of 2014. So we will still have a robust presence in Afghanistan for at least the next three years. And the president has been clear that the pace of the drawdown will be conditions-based.

So I think that while we will see some gradual drawdowns and—beginning in July, I think that how fast those drawdowns go will depend largely on the situation on the ground.

In terms of other places, you know, we have—since Vietnam, we have an absolutely perfect record in forecasting where we will use military force next. We have never once gotten it right. Whether it was Grenada or Panama or Haiti or the Balkans, we've never predicted it more than—even six months before.

So if there is—if there is any lesson, it seems to me, over the last 35 years, it is that we can't predict where problems will require the engagement of the United States military. If you—you know, again, if you had told me in December that we would be significantly involved in a military operation against Gadhafi in Libya, I'd have taken that bet.

So we just—we just don't know, to tell you the truth. And that's why we have to be prepared. And the argument that I make to our own folks as well as to the president and the Congress is as we look at what we buy and the capabilities we have, particularly in a period of constrained budgets, we have to buy capabilities that have the maximum possible flexibility for the broadest possible range of conflict, because we just don't know where trouble spots will occur.

I remember, in the fall of 2008, Secretary of State Condi Rice telling me that— she kind of did like this, and said: Piracy? Piracy, for God's sake? The last American secretary of defense that dealt with piracy was Thomas Jefferson.

So these problems just keep cropping up. And one of my arguments, in terms of being very cautious about significant cuts in the defense budget, is that four times in the last century after a war we have significantly reduced our military capabilities, thinking that the world had changed, that challenges had gone away, that—as one so-called scholar said after the end of the Cold War that—the end of history. Human nature hasn't changed. There will always be despots out there. There will always be aggressors. There will always be tyrants. And so we'd better keep our military capabilities strong as we look to the future, because we can't tell what the future holds for us.

Q. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Master Sergeant Carla Sanders with the 916th Maintenance Group. Going back to your statement regarding the risk-based assessment for cutting defense, has—is it a concern that with all the fronts that we're on right now and the humanitarian efforts that we're making, that the military right now is stretched thinly?

And if it's a concern, why is it even a discussion that they would cut the defense budget? I mean, we're a volunteer force, and we're here willingly, but it's to the point where we're stretched so thinly that it's almost impossible to— or it feels impossible that we're trying to do so much right now.

Secretary Gates. Well, there's no question that our military is stretched thin. And people have had, like many in this room have had, multiple rotations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, probably now also Libya. And that's clearly going to continue for at least a couple of more years. Our military forces have been at war for 10 years just about. And there is no question that our force is also tired.

We're going to require significant resources for reset. When the Army comes home, they're going to need a lot of new equipment just to replace the stuff that's been lost or damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. So reset is going to be a big bill. China and Russia are already working on 5th-generation aircraft. And we must go forward with our 5th-generation aircraft, the F-35. We have to have a new tanker. It's unavoidable.

And so we've got some must-pay bills out there that, I think, the country—that for our national security have to be paid. Many of the surface ships that were built in the Reagan administration under President Reagan are beginning to age out and will age out by the end of this decade. And do we really want that small a Navy, to go down to 230, 240, 250 ships? Will that enable us to meet the missions that are—that are being given to us?

So what I'm trying to do is—again, going back to the earlier answer, what I'm trying to do is put these facts on the table, at the same—and in terms of risk and capability, as opposed to just kind of what makes the math work in terms of reducing the deficit

My point, quite frankly, is that if you cut the defense budget in FY '12 by—or in FY '11 by 10 percent, which in my judgment in the short term would be catastrophic, that would be roughly $53 billion. That's on a $1.4 trillion deficit. I do not believe we are part of the problem when it comes to the annual deficits.

Longer term, we have to do our part in terms of reducing the national debt and getting the budget back in balance. But people need to understand that defense has not—the base budget in defense is not the cause of this problem as far as I'm concerned.

But we will do our part, and I—and I think that the whole—the whole process has to be one of looking at how we can— if we have to reduce, how we can do so without hollowing out the military as we did in the 1970s and the 1990s. I mean, we've been here before. We know how this works. And the worst of all possible outcomes, in my view, would be an across-the-board percentage cut across the services. My view is, that's basically managerial cowardice.

We're going to have to make choices and decisions. And if we have to be smaller, I still want us to be superb. I still want us to be the best in the world. And that means enough flying hours, enough steaming days, enough tank miles so that our forces still have the resources and the capabilities to be able to do the kinds of thing that just happened last Sunday and the kind of thing you all do every day

So we're looking at several different pathways of analysis. One is, what more can we do in terms of efficiencies? The defense budget almost doubled in the 19—in the 2000s, between 2000 and 2010. A lot of that was inexorable things, like the cost of retiree health care. Our military health care budget has gone from $19 billion in 2000 to $53 billion this year. We're being eaten alive by the thing. It's 10 percent of our budget at this point.

So—and—but I think in that 10 years, there's also been a growth in overhead and infrastructure that we can take another hard look at and see some more savings— by consolidating headquarters, by reducing the number of contractors we depend on, particularly for management services and professional services, not when it comes to maintenance and things like that.

A second category is marginal missions and marginal capabilities; what missions do we have that we can tell the country we don't think we need to do these, we should stop doing these things.

The third and hardest category strategically is what I was talking about earlier, how do you—how do you change your assumptions about how you are going to fight in the future in a way that minimizes risk but also points toward where you can have reduced capabilities.

And I'll just give you one example. The assumption behind most of our military planning for the last—ever since the end of the Cold War has been having the capability to fight two major regional wars simultaneously. Well, what if you told yourself, I actually don't think we're going to have two wars simultaneously, and so if they're not going to be fought simultaneously, but sequentially, perhaps, then what are the implications of that for force structure, and what are the risks? Because you're making an assumption that it won't happen; and unfortunately, the enemy always has a vote.

So—and then the third—or the fourth bin, if you will, are what I call third-rail issues: base closures, military health care. And again, we're not talking about the active force, we're talking about working-age retirees, we're talking about military retirement.

Now, just so everybody will know, I think it is politically impossible to change military retirement without essentially grandfathering everybody who's already in the service. So relax. I just think politically it would never pass.

But some of these issues are going to have to be tackled as we look out the next 10 years or 12 years. And so those are the four avenues that we're looking at.

But I want to do this in a thoughtful and sensible way that protects our national security while doing what we need to do to help deal with this budget problem.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Admiral Mike Mullen delivered these remarks in Islamabad, Pakistan

Secretary Clinton. Admiral Mullen and I have just completed a very extensive, open, frank, and constructive discussion with the leadership of Pakistan—with the president, the prime minister, the chief of staff of the army, General Kayani, the head of ISI, General Pasha, and with representatives from the foreign office and the interior ministry.

I have to begin by expressing appreciation for the warm welcome that we both received and the open dialogue that was the hallmark of our hours together. The United States and Pakistan have been friends for a very long time. We have a relationship that is rooted in mutual respect and mutual interests, so there is always a lot to talk about. But this was an especially important visit because we have reached a turning point. Usama bin Ladin is dead, but al-Qaida and its syndicate of terror remain a serious threat to us both. There is momentum toward political reconciliation in Afghanistan, but the insurgency continues to operate from safe havens here in Pakistan. And the Pakistani people are standing courageously for their democracy and their future, but the country continues to face enormous economic, political, and security challenges.

The United States has been clear and consistent about our expectations for this relationship. We have strong interests in the region and we are pursuing them vigorously. These are not uniquely American aims. We believe that Pakistanis pursue the same goals and share the same hopes. We seek to defeat violent extremism, end the conflict in Afghanistan, and ensure a secure, stable, democratic, prosperous future for Pakistan. And we expect to work closely with the government and the people of Pakistan to achieve those ends.

First, the fight against violent extremism. For the past decade, many of the world's most vicious terrorists, including al-Qaida's most important leaders, have been living in Pakistan. From here, they have targeted innocent people all over the world—in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and far beyond. But no nation has sacrificed more lives in this struggle against violent extremism than Pakistan has. Extremists have killed women and children, blown up mosques and markets, and shown no regard for human life or dignity.

The United States and Pakistan have worked together to kill or capture many of these terrorists here on Pakistani soil. This could not have been done without close cooperation between our governments, our militaries, and our intelligence agencies. But we both recognize there is still much more work required and it is urgent. Today, we discussed in even greater detail cooperation to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida, and to drive them from Pakistan and the region. We will do our part and we look to the Government of Pakistan to take decisive steps in the days ahead. Joint action against al-Qaida and its affiliates will make Pakistan, America, and the world safer and more secure.

But I want to underscore a point that I made in public in the last weeks and made again privately today to the president, the prime minister, and others. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone at the highest levels of the Pakistani Government knew that Usama bin Ladin was living just miles from where we are today. And we know that al-Qaida has been a source of great pain and suffering to the leadership that has been in every way attempting to eradicate the threat that is posed. But we know we have to redouble our efforts together. That is the way forward.

Second, on Afghanistan, both our nations have an interest in a safe, stable Afghanistan that is not a source of insecurity for its neighbors or others. And we need to work together to achieve that goal. As part of America's strategy, we are supporting an Afghan-led process that seeks to split the Taliban from al-Qaida and reconcile those insurgents who will renounce violence and accept the constitution of Afghanistan. And we know that for reconciliation to succeed, Pakistan must be a part of that process. Many of the leaders of the Taliban continue to live in Pakistan, and Pakistan has very legitimate interests in the outcome of this process. And those interests need to be respected and addressed. But we also discussed that Pakistan has a responsibility to help us help Afghanistan by preventing insurgents from waging war from Pakistani territory.

Today, we discussed Pakistan's perspective on Afghanistan and how it can support the international community's efforts there. And we look forward to putting those words into action and seeing momentum toward a political resolution. We think that the recently held trilaterals between the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—one here in Islamabad, one in Kabul—are a very important step toward the resolution in Afghanistan.

A third major area where America's and Pakistan's interests intersect is the future of this country itself. In recent years, the United States has tried to be a very good friend to Pakistan. We have repeatedly delivered on what we promised by providing billions of dollars in new assistance to address Pakistan's energy and other economic challenges. We've expanded assistance to your security forces. And we led ongoing international relief efforts to respond to last year's devastating floods. We've built the largest educational and cultural exchange program anywhere in the world as an investment in the youth of Pakistan. And we launched a Strategic Dialogue that brings our governments together to discuss the full range of common concerns. And we agreed that this work must continue. It continued today and it will continue tomorrow.

We are prepared to stand by the Pakistani people for the long haul. The United States knows that Pakistan's future is imperatively important for us, but even more so for the people themselves, and we look toward a strong Pakistan, one that is democratic, one that is prosperous and stable, being a cornerstone for regional stability and global security. That is why the United States will continue to support Pakistan's sovereignty, its civilian-elected government, and above all, its people.

But let me be clear, as I was today, America cannot and should not solve Pakistan's problems. That's up to Pakistan. But in solving its problems, Pakistan should understand that anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories will not make problems disappear. It is up to the Pakistani people to choose what kind of country they wish to live in. And it is up to the leaders of Pakistan to deliver results for the people. There is still a lot of work to be done to reduce corruption and grow the economy, to rebuild from the floods, to get electricity more readily available, to make progress in eliminating extremists and their sanctuaries.

So there are hard choices to make, and we should proceed in a spirit of openness and candor, because part of friendship is speaking honestly and telling each other our perspectives and, where necessary, even difficult truths as we see them. We have shared interests, we have common challenges, and yes, we have areas of disagreement. During Pakistan's first winter as a young nation, Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, “We are going through fire. The sunshine has yet to come.” But his confidence in the resilience and determination of the Pakistani people never wavered. And the years have vindicated his faith.

As we look ahead from this pivotal moment, that determination by the Pakistani people themselves will be more important than ever. I believe that Pakistan's best days are ahead, and the United States wants to be there as you move into a future that realizes the promise of your beginning. And we will stand with you and support you as you make the tough decisions to have the kind of country and future that the people of Pakistan deserve.

Admiral Mullen. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank all of you for being here. I too wish to express my gratitude for the time afforded us by so many of Pakistan's leaders today. Having been somewhat of a frequent flyer myself to these parts, I know and appreciate how tough it is, especially in times like this to break away from the press of events to hold these sorts of discussions.

And as the Secretary mentioned, they were very candid discussions, the kind of discussions two friends should be able to have at such a critical time. I want to associate myself with everything the Secretary said about the criticality of this relationship and about moving it forward in a positive direction. But in particular, I want to echo her comments about the shared sense of urgency. I think we all realize the challenges under which this relationship now labors, but now is not the time for retreat or for recrimination. Now is the time for action and closer coordination; for more cooperation, not less; for the friendship to get stronger, not weaker.

The killing of Usama bin Ladin has accomplished many things, many necessary things. It has removed permanently the leader of an organization that is avowed to no other end than the killing of innocent people. It has sent that organization into some disarray and most likely disrupted some of its future plans. It has called into question, indeed it has proven false, al-Qaida's claim and confidence in itself as untouchable or omniscient, just as events throughout the Arab world prove false—prove false al-Qaida's ideology of extremism and hate.

But bin Ladin's death, however welcome, has not for the short term eliminated the threats we both face from terrorism. Recent attacks right here in Pakistan over the last few days serve as grim reminders of that fact, and of the sacrifices the Pakistan people—Pakistani people continue to pay at the hands of these criminals. Nor has his death meant the death of al-Qaida altogether or of the alliances that are formed between al-Qaida and elements of the Taliban. We see that collusion persist. We see the desire emerge for longevity and reorganization and perhaps even the desire for closer ties between disparate groups of extremists. To be sure, these groups are weaker, much weaker, and not just as a result of this raid, but as a result of the extraordinary efforts expended by both coalition forces and the Pakistani military over the last several years. There is a much larger struggle afoot, and I would be remiss if I did not applaud the bravery and the skill with which Pakistani troops have engaged the enemy in that struggle, losing thousands of their number in the process.

But in their weakness and in their confusion, the terrorists are lashing out, and so the fight will and must go on, and it must go on with the Pakistani military and the U.S. military acting, coordinating, and leading together. We have come too far and sacrificed too much for it to be any other way for either of us. This isn't America's war. This is Pakistan's war and Afghanistan's war. It's a reasonable war against a common enemy, a war in which all of us share a stake and all of us must hazard certain risks.

For our part, my military took many risks going after bin Ladin, risks to the lives of our men and women in uniform, risks to civilian causalities and to collateral damage. We took the risk of being wrong about what we thought we knew of the killer's whereabouts. And yes, in our desire to preserve secrecy, we incurred a certain risk in our relationships with other nations in the region. But this particular relationship with Pakistan is too critical, and now is too critical a time to allow whatever differences we may still have with one another impede the progress we must still make together.

I harbor no illusions about the difficulties ahead nor do I leave here misinformed about the trust which still needs to be rebuilt between our two militaries. But I do leave here with a sense that General Kayani and other Pakistani military leaders share my commitment to that task and share my desire to look for ways to advance the relationship. There's no better time for that sort of partnership than right now. Thank you.

Q. Madam Secretary, you spoke about your—you spoke about expectations, and you said this in Paris as well before coming here. After your meeting with the Pakistani leadership, what is your assessment that—is Pakistan ready to meet those expectations? And is—and how do you assess the—is Pakistan ready to move away from your— or what your military leadership thinks, exclusion at Haqqani Network and other groups that are of concern to United States and other countries?

Secretary Clinton. Well, let me speak first from my perspective. I cannot speak for the Pakistani leadership with whom we met. But certainly, my conclusion is that we are both committed to this relationship. We understand its strategic importance. We have critical interests that intersect in a number of important areas, which we both have mentioned—the issue of extremism, the future of Afghanistan, the economy, long-term stability. And we also have a shared appreciation for the sacrifice that the other has been making and continues to make. When we sit down to talk together across from the leaders of your country, we represent a country that has also been victimized by extremism, that has also lost brave young men and women in uniform, who are fighting against the violent extremists. So we understand the real sense of loss that is expressed to us by the leaders and people of Pakistan about the costs of this struggle against extremism.

But we both know there can be no quarter given, that there can be no peace, no stability, no democracy, no future for Pakistan unless the violent extremists are removed, either by coming to their senses and recognizing that they should be part of a political process if they have a point of view to present and not try to inflict their ideology or their prejudices on an entire nation, or they will have to be killed or captured.

So we came today to talk about all that we have in common, and we did so. And I, for one, came away from our meeting convinced of the importance of this relationship, the significance to my country's national security, and therefore the need to deepen our cooperation on every level between our governments, our militaries, and our intelligence and law enforcement services, but that we must, at the same time, continue to reach out to the Pakistani people, to cut through what I have talked about on my previous visits are often deliberate misunderstandings, conspiracy theories, accusations and the like which really have nothing to do with how we chart the future that we both hope to see.

So I think that I return to Washington ever more committed to doing whatever I can to make sure that the cooperation we're seeking is forthcoming and the cooperation that we've been asked for by our counterparts is also occurring from our part. But let me ask the admiral to add anything he wishes to add.

Admiral Mullen. Well, from the military perspective—again, I met with General Kayani and the military leadership and did so at a time of great stress, obviously, in the relationship, which is one of the reasons that we're here. But we had very frank and open discussions about how to move ahead and about the importance of the relationship and the challenges that we face, the shared challenges that we face. And one of the things that I try to do always is listen to those challenges from the Pakistani perspective, and because we've been through the difficult challenges of late, being here now, I thought, was very important.

And from my perspective, no one should doubt for a minute the long-term commitment to this relationship, to the need to rebuild on the trust that certainly was recently shaken, and that the strength of that relationship in the long term will, I think, support a more stable, peaceful, prosperous Pakistan but also a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous region.

Q. Thank you, ma'am. (Inaudible.) Thank you very much. You talked about conspiracy theories and anti-Americanism in Pakistan. But as we see, the U.S. media and your think tank reports believe that the situation is good on the part of United States. I mean, in one incident, our 80-90 young men, they are killed by the terrorists. Even our bases, Mehran and PNS Mehran, is not safe.

But these sacrifices, they do not reflect in the United States media, their think tanks, and their opinion-making process. And sadly, the U.S. Administration cannot get its perspective reflected in the U.S. opinion-making process. Is that in the United States something that Pashtuns should be first called a bad name, then weakened, and then destabilized? What's the policy in the United States both in the political parties and in the Administration?

Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you for asking that question, because I think you've put, as we would say, your finger on a very important concern that we both share. It is fair to say that the level of cooperation and hard work that goes on every day at the highest levels of your government and mine in pursuit of these common objectives is often either not understood or not reflected fairly in the political discourse or in the press of either of our countries.

You have a very free press in Pakistan. We have a very free press in the United States. I think it's one of our strengths. But as a result, you don't have either government dictating what is going to be said. And we actually talked about that this morning, because I share the concern that your question expresses. We both—both in my country and in your country, we need to do a better job. We need to do a better job of actually getting the story out. People don't have to agree with us. Now, that's—in a democracy, which we both are, you are free to disregard whatever position is put out.

But what is not helpful is either not knowing what we are doing on both sides or deliberating distorting what we are doing. So I think we have some work ahead to try to do a better job to just tell the truth about what we are working on together and the level of aid that the United States is providing. I mean, we provide more support than Saudi Arabia, China, and everybody else combined. But I will stand here and admit that I'm not sure many Pakistanis know that. We provided, I think, the most even after all of it came in, in the aggregate, the most aid for the floods. But I bet not many Pakistanis know that.

And on the reverse, as you rightly point out, you have suffered grievously. The loss of those young men who were training to protect their country was a tragedy, and I don't know that enough Americans understood what that meant.

So we both have work to do. So let's clear away the underbrush. Let's have the kind of open, candid conversation that you and I are having now and that we had earlier today, and then let the chips fall where they may. But let's not be misinterpreting and misrepresenting each other, because then we can never, ever find common ground.

Q. Thank you. You've spoken, Madam Secretary, of the work that both sides need to do and you just referenced public opinion. I wonder if, in terms of specifics, you've talked about what you would like the Pakistanis to do in counterterrorism fight. What more does the United States need to do to strengthen this relationship beyond public images? And specifically, did you speak about the question of visas, about the presence of U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, and military officials here? Do you expect those numbers to go down?

And finally, again on specifics, Secretary Gates and others in the United States have said that, as you said, there's no evidence that senior officials here knew of the presence of bin Ladin but that somebody knew. Was that something that you discussed today, and what's your sense of how far the Pakistani investigations have gone on that?

Secretary Clinton. Yes, we did. We discussed all of the issues that you just raised, Karen. On the last one, we discussed very frankly, and our counterparts in the government were very forthcoming in saying that somebody, somewhere was providing some kind of support. And they are carrying out an investigation. And we have certainly offered to share whatever information we come across, and we intend to be consulting closely as we go forward with them providing information they are finding and us reciprocating.

You may know that today the United States Government got access to the compound, thanks to the cooperation of the ISI and the military. And we are working to try to untangle the puzzle of bin Ladin's presence in Abbottabad. But I want to stress again that we have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone in the highest levels of the government knew that. In fact, they were quite emotional in conveying how they would have gone after them if they had known he was there, because as the President said, there's a lot of reason to believe al-Qaida was behind his wife's murder. So there were common concerns about this, and we had a very forthright discussion.

With respect to visas, look, our security assistance is provided in coordination and at the request of the Pakistani Government and the Pakistani military, and we work closely with Pakistan to try to ensure that they have the training and the equipment and that we have the personnel necessary to support their counterinsurgency efforts. And the size of our presence at any time in Pakistan is a function of the amount and type of work that is needed to be done to meet the Pakistani Government's request. And we have not noticed any official statement from the Government of Pakistan that in any way would demonstrate that they're not going to be continuing to request the kind of assistance we provide, and we're going to continue to offer what we believe is in our mutual best interests.

Mike, do you want to add anything?

Admiral Mullen. The only thing I'd add, Karen, is certainly I've talked with General Kayani and in recent really weeks and months about the level of military support. We've been here for some time at the invitation of the Pakistani Government and Pakistani military working a training mission, and those numbers go up and down over time. And there have been requests to reduce those numbers, and those are in considered—and going through the details of what that means and how that looks in the future is something we're working our way through with them, literally, as we speak.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered this statement in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. The United States strongly condemns the abduction and killing of reporter Syed Saleem Shehzad. His work reporting on terrorism and intelligence issues in Pakistan brought to light the troubles extremism poses to Pakistan's stability. We support the Pakistani government's investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

We remain committed to helping the government and people of Pakistan as they work to bring peace and stability to the country.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks at the USS Missouri, Hawaii

Secretary Gates. It's a pleasure to be here in Hawaii again. I have visited the Arizona memorial before and so I wanted to visit the Missouri today. I particularly wanted to visit because my wife is the sponsor of the newest U.S. warship named Missouri, a nuclear attack submarine which was commissioned last year and one of the mementos she was given was one of the original planks from this ship.

This ship defended our country for nearly half a century. I feel a little bit like a historic relic myself since she was last in service during the first gulf war, before she was decommissioned, and obviously secured her place in history with the Japanese surrender on her decks. It seems to me that visiting this ship and looking at the Arizona memorial fitting the day after Memorial Day to serve as a reminder of all those who have served and made the supreme sacrifice for our country.

People here in Hawaii continue to make a contribution to the defense of our country. In Iraq I met with troops with the 25th Infantry Division based here in Hawaii. I can tell you they are doing a terrific job. And I just want to thank all of the people of Hawaii for the support that you provide to the United States military, all the services. I would particularly single out Senators Inouye and Akaka. We are sorry to see Senator Akaka retiring. He makes me a little ashamed that I am retiring, I'm a little bit younger than he is. But he's given a lot of service to our country and Senator Inouye continues to do so. With that, it's a pleasure to be here and I'll take a question or two.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what message are you taking to Asian defense ministers in Singapore?

Secretary Gates. Well I think that the critical message is that even as we look at potential budget reductions there is no slackening of the U.S. commitment to our presence in Asia. We are a pacific nation and we will remain a pacific nation. We will remain engaged and we will continue to build relationships with friends, partners and allies in Asia and there will be no slackening of our efforts in that respect.

Q. I would like to ask a question about President Karzai's statements earlier today, it was much earlier today but it was today, in which he criticized ISAF and NATO for civilian casualties. He said this was his last warning and that he was going to further restrict use of air strikes. I'm wondering whether you feel he is tying ISAF's hands or are there things that can actually be done to eliminate the problem.

Secretary Gates. Well, I don't know the circumstances of the specific incident but this is a continuing challenge that we face in the kind of war that we fight in Afghanistan. I think joint investigations of these incidents when they happen are important so that we can mutually figure out what exactly happened, what if anything went wrong. I think General Petraeus has a good dialogue with President Karzai about these incidents. I think we need to go back to the reality that about 80 percent of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by the Taliban who are clearly now even more than before targeting civilians, not even using them to shelter among but to just go after them with IED's and so on. The Afghan people have put up with 30 years of war and I think President Karzai is reflecting the pain and suffering that the Afghan people have had to endure. But at the same time I think he also recognizes, and the Afghan people do, that we are their ally and we are their friend and we are trying to help them develop the capability to protect themselves so that the Afghan people can see an end to this kind of conflict.

Secretary Robert Gates and President Hamid Karzai delivered these remarks in Kabul, Afghanistan

President Karzai. [I]t's such a pleasure and honor to once again welcome a deeply respected personality and a friend, His Excellency Robert Gates, defense secretary of the United States.

I'm so sorry to report that (inaudible) in one month's time, he will depart from the defense ministry and will continue his life. Secretary Gates is among the personalities, who in the past four and a half years, been in close and very direct contact with the people of Afghanistan, with the government of Afghanistan, and for years he has continued to treat to the fullest possible extent a friendliness and he has supported and he's understood Afghanistan's position, and he's always had an understanding of the realities and the truth and the realities on the ground. And as far as we are aware, he was fully (inaudible) of Afghanistan in the U.S. administration. He was always backing our position and our expectations.

Throughout these years he has done a great deal in helping equip and train Afghanistan's security forces. It was during his term as the defense secretary where Afghanistan security forces received most of the attention. And today, I repeat that due to the support and the assistance he has given to the Afghanistan security forces and our defense ministry and due to the respect that he has to the people of Afghanistan and due to the very friendly intention that he has towards the people of Afghanistan. And if I may tell you a secret—he has said the people (inaudible) the U.S. and the government to listen to the people of Afghanistan to listen to the government of Afghanistan.

So, based on all these services and all these, we are happy to have (inaudible) a state medal to (inaudible) continued success even when he is out of the defense ministry. And I hope that he would continue to promote Afghanistan's position when he's outside the Defense Department. And I would hope that he would continue to help us in our difficult struggle.

Today, we had detailed discussions and conversations with his excellency and his accompanying delegation on the war on terror, on the situation in Afghanistan and in the region. And, again, with his excellency we took up the issue of the civilian casualties and on behalf of the people of Afghanistan we humbly asked and suggested to his excellency that the bombardments and the raids over the Afghan houses not be repeated.

And while are the partners and we are allies in the war, the people of Afghanistan do not wish and want to see their houses being bombarded and the civilians being killed and innocent lives being lost. And on the night house searches, night raids and detentions and arrests, we also had discussions about the detentions and the house searches.

We spoke on the joint commission or committee that exists to talk about how to take forward the issues. So we hope that we could soon reach to a conclusion and to a discussion. But, again, on the issue of the bombarding of the Afghan houses, we conveyed the concern of the Afghan people to the U.S. administration and to the U.S. Defense Department. This is people's expectation and demand.

We also talked about the strategic agreement between—the partnership agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. We see that agreement for the benefit of the country on which we are now in discussion and we have expressed our views and our proposals and we hope that we could interact further on the details of the agreement so an agreement could finally be reached where the interests of both countries could be served.

And I also thanked his excellency for the U.S. assistance and cooperation for the education, for health, for the road buildings, and for the strengthening of the Afghan institutions. I once again on behalf of the people of Afghanistan, I thank his excellency. And through him, U.S. government and U.S. public for all they have done to Afghanistan. We appreciate all which you've done and we hope that the civilian casualties, again, not be repeated.

And I once again welcome you, your excellency, to Afghanistan, to Kabul. And it is such a pleasure to see you again. And I hope you accept the State Medal of Honor that we awarded to you for the two services you've done. And I hope that this should not be the last visit of you, not as the defense secretary but we hope to see you more often and we hope to interact with you and we hope to receive you as a very respected guest of the people of Afghanistan. Thank you.

Secretary Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for the award you just presented to me on behalf of the Afghan people. I am deeply honored.

As the president indicated, this is my 12^th and last visit to Afghanistan as United States secretary of defense. In each case, Mr. President, I have appreciated the gracious hospitality you and your colleagues and the ministry of defense have extended to me and my colleagues. I've greatly valued our personal friendship and the honest and forthright dialogue that we have always had.

Two sovereign countries as different as the United States and Afghanistan will never look at everything the same way, but I believe we have built the foundation of a real partnership that will be sustained into the future to the benefit of both our people.

Over the next few days I'll spend most of my time visiting U.S. and coalition forces in the field as well as some of their Afghan comrades. It will be my last chance as defense secretary to look them each in the eye and thank them for their service and their sacrifice on behalf of the future of Afghanistan, the stability of this key region, and the security of the United States.

And because this is my final visit to this country as secretary, I would like to take this occasion to offer some broader reflections to the Afghan people about how we got here, the struggle we are in, and the way ahead.

Twenty years ago, the United States walked away from Afghanistan in the wake of the Soviet withdrawal, believing that our job was done, that what happened here subsequently would not affect our own security and national interests. I remember this all too well, as I was in a senior position in the American government at the time. That tragic miscalculation was exposed by the attacks of September 11^th, 2001.

In the years that followed the fall of the Taliban regime, the international effort in Afghanistan, both civilian and military, suffered from a lack of focus, coordination and resources, and too often a lack of respect for Afghan sensitivities and Afghan sovereignty.

When I took this post in December 2006, just over four and a half years ago, the Taliban resurgence was well underway and picking up momentum. In response, the total international military commitment to Afghanistan has increased threefold to nearly 150,000 troops representing more than 45 countries. Over the past year and a half, international forces working with the Afghan army, as well with the Afghan national and local police have made significant military gains, ejecting the Taliban from population centers and their traditional strongholds in the south and the east.

Osama bin Laden, the Taliban's spiritual and strategic ally, the international terrorist whose use of Afghanistan precipitated our military intervention here, is now gone.

All that said, there is weariness in both of our countries over the duration and costs of this conflict. I am keenly aware that ISAF military operations have at times impacted the Afghan people in unwelcome ways from minor but grating inconveniences to in some rare but tragic cases civilians accidentally killed or injured—losses we mourn and profoundly regret.

But we also know that the vast majority of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by the Taliban, who intentionally target innocent men, women, and children with their terror attacks. And few Afghan citizens want to return to the cruel and despotic regime that so devastated this country during the 1990s.

Now we have reached an important inflection point in this struggle for the future of Afghanistan. The enemy has absorbed serious losses in leadership, manpower and territory over the last year and a half. At the same time, the Afghan army has seen dramatic gains in size and capability. The shift in military momentum provides the Afghan government an opportunity to strengthen the competence of its people through economic development, fair enforcement of the rule of law, attacking corruption and the provision of basic services.

This summer, ISAF will begin a gradual, responsible transition of security responsibilities to Afghan forces with the goal of removing all international combat troops by the end of 2014. As this transition moves forward, the Afghan people should remember two main things: first, while the U.S. and our coalition partners may draw down our military forces over time, we are committed to a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan.

We will continue to train, equip and support Afghan security forces and do what we can to help the government improve the lives of its citizens. In short, there will be no rush to the exits. And I know that Leon Panetta, President Obama's choice as my successor, shares this view as does General John Allen, who has been nominated to lead the ISAF when General Petraeus departs later this year.

We have all learned the catastrophic consequences for the Afghan people, for the region, and for the world, of allowing violent extremists allied with terrorists to dominate this country. While the international commitment here is strong and durable, that commitment is not infinite in either time or resources. For the upcoming transition to be successful, the Afghan government and security forces must be willing to step up and take more and more responsibility for governing and defending their own territory. This is the true manifestation of Afghan sovereignty. The international coalition wants to be a strong partner in this effort, but ultimately it is up to the Afghan people and their elected government to chart Afghanistan's destiny.

With that, I want to thank President Karzai again for his friendship, for his courageous efforts for so many years on behalf of the Afghan people, his steadfast defense of Afghan sovereignty and for the partnership he has sustained with the United States and our ISAF allies.

Finally, I would close by extending my best wishes and prayers to the Afghan people who have endured so much for so long, for their safety and success in these challenging times ahead.

Thank you.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you've spoken today about the need to keep military pressure on the Taliban and in advance of possible reconciliation talks in the winter. Does that not argue for keeping the same amount of combat power here at least through the summer in order to maintain that pressure?

And, Mr. President, do you think the Obama administration should take advantage of the July decision to withdraw more forces and reduce the number of raids going on and some of the other activities that you've complained about?

Secretary Gates. I think that we have enjoyed a great deal of success over the last two years in two respects. The first has been building the strength and quality of the Afghan national security forces. The Afghan security forces today are tens of thousands larger than they were two years ago.

Second, we have been quite successful over the last 18 months or so, and particularly in the Taliban heartland, in Helmand and Kandahar, as I indicated in my remarks in ejecting them. So it seems to me that between the successes that we've already enjoyed and the increased capacity of the Afghan forces, we are a in a position—based on conditions on the ground, as the president has said—to consider some modest draw-downs beginning in July. We have to remember our goals here. It was to deny the Taliban control of populated areas, disrupt and degrade the capabilities of al Qaeda, degrade the capabilities of the Taliban, and enable the Afghan security forces to be able to take greater and greater responsibility for security in the country. I think we've made significant headway in each of those principal objectives.

President Karzai. On the question of the July date and the decision of the U.S. government with regard to reduction of troops beginning in the month of July, the issue of numbers and the categories from the U.S. government to decide, of course, in consultation with the Afghan government. From the prospective of Afghanistan, the most important question is the implementation of the transition process that we have begun together, that this is done exactly as we have planned, that this is done according to the time-frame, that while this is happening that we make sure that the Afghans don't suffer the consequences of the war on terror and Afghan civilians see more and more of their own government engaging with them, they see the removal of parallel structures that are there right now, to see the removal of the parallel activities that are there right now that they are faced with the Afghan government responsible to the Afghan people and that our partners are here in a supportive role with Afghanistan to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and most successful conduct against terrorism, whereby eventually the Afghan people will thank the United States and its allies greatly in bringing progress and stability and a lasting peace to this country.

With that objective, I'm sure we are all in agreement, especially in Washington. And I hope we can work it out as good as we speak about it.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks in Brussels, Belgium

Secretary Gates. Good afternoon. As you know, this is my final NATO ministerial— and I really do mean that this time. I have always placed particular importance on these sessions because the transatlantic security relationship—and the key role this alliance has played in protecting this continent—has been the central interest of my professional life, beginning 45 years ago this summer. Tomorrow, I will have the opportunity in a speech here in Brussels to reflect on the state of that security relationship and to offer some thoughts on its future course.

The session that just ended focused on NATO's most important mission—our effort underway in Afghanistan. Having arrived in Brussels directly from my 12th and last visit to Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense, I shared my view that we are making substantial military progress on the ground. I also reiterated my belief that these gains could be threatened if we do not proceed with the transition to Afghan security lead in a deliberate, organized, and coordinated manner. Even as the United States begins to draw down next month, I assured my fellow ministers that there will be no rush to the exits on our part—and we expect the same from our allies.

Another focus of this ministerial was the effort underway in Libya. We affirmed the recent agreement to extend the NATO mission for another 90 days, as NATO strikes are becoming more and more effective at degrading the Qadhafi regime's military capability. Although we will keep up this operations tempo for as long as necessary, I did call for several alliance members to contribute military capabilities so that the burdens are more evenly shared and thus more easily sustained over time. We also discussed potential supporting roles for NATO in post-conflict Libya, although no one envisions that NATO will be in the lead.

Let me turn to the sessions focused on NATO's relationship with Russia. I was pleased that the NATO-Russia Council Defense Ministers met after a three-year hiatus, reflecting the commitment to strategic partnership at Lisbon announced by our heads of state and government. One of the key issues in the NATO-Russia relationship is missile defense, and in a separate bilateral meeting with Russian Minister of Defense Serdyukov, we reviewed the active efforts of our defense teams to lay the practical groundwork for cooperation on missile defense in Europe. While I had hoped we would be ready to move ahead on this subject in the NATO-Russia Council, it is clear that we will need more time. The Department of Defense remains committed to working with the Russian Ministry of Defense in support of our Presidents' instructions at Deauville, and it was encouraging to hear the strong consensus support at the NATO-Russia Council for practical cooperation on missile defense directed against threats from outside Europe, such as Iran, and not against each other.

The existence of this consensus, and the practical cooperation with Russia on a range of defense issues, is a testament to how far this alliance has come since I entered government. NATO is far from the static defense alliance that used to be massed on the Fulda Gap. And even though operations in Afghanistan and Libya have exposed some challenges and shortcomings in the alliance, which I will discuss in greater depth tomorrow, I also believe there is a growing recognition that other allies need to take on more of the burden and acquire greater military capabilities.

As I conclude this final ministerial, I am deeply heartened by the progress made last night on one of my key priorities here in Brussels—NATO reform. I started talking about overhauling the NATO Command Structure and headquarters bureaucracy three years ago, and have been pushing these reforms ever since. Under the leadership of the Secretary General Rasmussen, and with the support of my fellow ministers, we have laid the groundwork for the most fundamental structural changes the alliance has seen in decades. Although there is still hard work ahead to implement these changes, the tough political decisions have been made. But when they are finally realized—hopefully sooner rather than later—we will have modernized and streamlined NATO to address 21st century challenges.

Finally, I told my colleagues that it has been an honor and a privilege to work so closely with them and the Secretary General. I concluded by saying “I leave confident that this nearly 65 year old alliance will endure and prosper—the oldest, most powerful and most collaborative joint endeavor of democratic peoples and governments in all of human history.”

Thank you.

Bob.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Bob Burns of Associated Press. I wanted to ask you about—in Afghanistan, about the connection between the U.S. troop drawdown plan and the prospects for getting the Taliban leadership into serious reconciliation talks.

Is a drawdown at this stage, this year, consistent with efforts to improve chances for reconciliation?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think that the key in terms of potential for reconciliation is not merely in the numbers of the troops; it is in the progress that we have made. And we have made a great deal of progress in the last 18 months in terms of driving the Taliban out of their homeland and their strongholds in Kandahar and Helmand. We've made a great deal of progress in improving the capabilities of the NATO—of the Afghan national security forces, particularly the army, both in numbers and in quality.

So one of the fundamental objectives of the president's strategy, which I've been working to execute since December of 2009, was that the components were to deny the Taliban control of populated areas and to degrade their capability to the point where the Afghan national security forces could protect their own country against the Taliban and against other insurgents.

We've made a lot of headway in both of those. So I think that the decisions in terms of troop numbers and so on, as the secretary-general said and as the president has said consistently, in terms of pace and numbers will be dependent on the conditions on the ground. By the same token, we have to realize that there has been an improvement in the situation on the ground. The key is, what kind of pressure do the Taliban feel under? I am—I have always believed that only when they are under significant pressure and begin to contemplate that they can't win, do they then—are they then motivated to enter into serious reconciliation talks. I see no changes likely in the next six months or so that are going to relieve the pressure on the Taliban.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Viola Gienger from Bloomberg News. You mentioned a NATO-Russia Council defense ministers meeting today in your meeting with Russian Defense Minister Serdyukov. You said that the U.S. is still committed to finding a way of cooperating on missile defense with Russia. Do you feel that the Russians are as committed as the United States?

Secretary Gates. I think that the Russians have questions about—particularly the longer-term nature of the—of the missile defense capability. I do think they're serious. I have—from the very first meetings I had in Russia with President—then President Putin in 2007 through my meetings with President Medvedev earlier this year and my meetings with Minister Serdyukov, I think that they have responded with interest in our suggestions in terms of how information sharing might work, how we might to work together on this. I still think there are those in Russia who are skeptical of our motives. And so I think that we just need to keep working at this.

I think that the proposals for the data centers that were first made by the Russians some months ago and that we've since elaborated and that I conveyed back to them in more concrete terms when I was in Moscow—I think there's genuine interest in that. And I think there is genuine interest in the joint analysis of the missile threat that we've—that we've agreed to do.

So I think we just have to take this a step at a step—a step at a time. I think that the Russians have a long history of hostility and wariness about missile defense, and so I just think we have to keep working at it with them.

Q. Yes. Two part question on reform. Could you give a sense then for the scale of impact on financial firms of the reform, in your view? We've seen 10s or 100s of millions of euros or more. And what guarantee is there that certain European allies won't use this as a good excuse to continue cutting their defense budget, since NATO won't use much money because it is much more efficient under this reform? Thank you.

Secretary Gates. Well, I think—first of all, I'm not in the position to be able to forecast the dollar or the euro savings through the reforms. But just as an example, we're looking at a reduction of about 25 to 30 percent of the personnel, so that's pretty substantial. The key going forward on the reform of the defense agencies to go from 14 to three is not to squeeze all the people from 14 agencies into three agencies. It's to figure out how you can do this more efficiently and more cost effectively. And I would say that several of the allies—the French, the British, among others—are really focused on this, and have been with us in terms of reform.

You've put your finger on a worry that I have. Frankly, that people will want to pocket whatever savings there is. I think one of the challenges that the alliance faces is in fact in terms of military capabilities. And with—and I'll talk about this at greater length tomorrow in my speech. But the key, then, is how can we do more together, through pooled efforts in the alliance, for countries whose defense budgets are under great pressure.

And I think a great example of that kind of pooled effort is the strategic air left— airlift capability, where a number of nations in essence went together and bought three C-17s that are stationed in Hungary. We need to do more of that in the alliance. The alliance ground surveillance system is another case of shared capability, where the costs are shared among a number of countries. So I think it's important that these savings be translated into capabilities, and not just pocketed.

Q. Mr. Gates? (Inaudible)—from German television ZDF. Does the death of Osama bin Laden has changed the situation for the Americans in Afghanistan, and you pushed at least 30,000 troops that were sent around—(inaudible)—in Bratislava, the defense minister meeting five months ago, and do you think it's now the appropriate moment to—well, to get them back to the United States? Is that possible—let's say toward the end of the year? And there were reports in the American news that there was at least—

Secretary Gates. You're testing my memory of being able to remember all these questions.

Q. Last remark, if you allow—that there was a waste of money in Afghanistan; how do you evaluate this?

Secretary Gates. That's a no-brainer. Of course there's been a waste of money in Afghanistan. You tell—you show me a war where there hasn't been a waste of money.

Now, I personally think that the—that the report was primarily focused on development projects, and I think that the leadership of AID and the State Department pushed back on that yesterday and the fact that a number of the recommendations have already been taken in this administration to correct some of those problems. But you know, we have three different oversight bodies just under ISAF in terms of monitoring contracts. We wouldn't have those if we didn't know we had a problem in effectively administering contracts, and so I end—I came—one of the things that I—that I benefit from—I'm digressing here a bit, but this is a useful opportunity—one of the things that I do every time I visit our troops is to sit down and have lunch or a meal with junior officers and junior enlisted.

In my meeting with junior officers, with captains, one of them talked about the desire to bring electricity to one of the forward operating bases, and a contractor's bid was $240,000 to do that. They went out and jerry-rigged something for a thousand dollars.

So what I suggested to General Rodriguez, when we were in the helicopter together, was, I—one of these oversight bodies at ISAF needs to establish a hotline that is made known to every American officer and NCO throughout Afghanistan, because they see this stuff up close, better and faster than almost anybody, and if they think the government or the military is getting ripped off, then for them to have a number of one of these investigative groups to call to give them a tip—so they told me they were going to go ahead, and that's basically a no-cost way to get information to those who are supervising these—to those who would investigate contractors who aren't behaving themselves.

In terms of Osama bin Laden, I think in terms of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, our commanders tell me they have not seen any difference. But that doesn't mean there won't be. And my message, when I was in Afghanistan, is that perhaps the most significant impact of bin Laden's death in terms of Afghanistan is that he had a close personal relationship with Mullah Omar of the Taliban. And if I were Taliban, I would say: What did al-Qaida ever do for me except get me kicked out of Afghanistan?

And so the question is whether breaking that strong link between al-Qaida and the Taliban, which was a personal link, creates the opportunity potentially for a greater likelihood of reconciliation, because obviously one of the red lines for the coalition and for the Afghan government was a complete disavowal by the Taliban of any connection or support of the—of al-Qaida.

So I think that in terms of the political prospects, the potential of the killing of bin Laden to be a game changer is there.

In terms of the situation on the ground, the commanders tell me they haven't seen anything yet. I think it's too early to tell. It's only been about five or six weeks at this point, five and a half weeks since he was killed. But I think there could be an impact, and—but it's going to take several months to see.

Q. Mr. Secretary, Jonathan Marcus from the BBC. I'm sure you'll probably have more to say on this tomorrow, but a brief answer, please. Only nine out of the 28 NATO members are involved in the current operation in Libya. How corrosive do you think—is it to the alliance's future that increasingly military operations seem to be conducted by a coalition of the willing within the broader alliance?

Secretary Gates. You're right; I will speak to that tomorrow.

President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Obama. Good evening. Nearly 10 years ago, America suffered the worst attack on our shores since Pearl Harbor. This mass murder was planned by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, and signaled a new threat to our security—one in which the targets were no longer soldiers on a battlefield, but innocent men, women and children going about their daily lives.

In the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al Qaeda and routed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then, our focus shifted. A second war was launched in Iraq, and we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there. By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al Qaeda's leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al Qaeda and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I've made as President, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al Qaeda, to reverse the Taliban's momentum, and train Afghan security forces to defend their own country. I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to draw down our forces this July.

Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

We're starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al Qaeda's leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don't forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”

The information that we recovered from bin Laden's compound shows al Qaeda under enormous strain. Bin Laden expressed concern that al Qaeda had been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that had been killed, and that al Qaeda has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam—thereby draining more widespread support. Al Qaeda remains dangerous, and we must be vigilant against attacks. But we have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done.

In Afghanistan, we've inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds. Along with our surge, our allies also increased their commitments, which helped stabilize more of the country. Afghan security forces have grown by over 100,000 troops, and in some provinces and municipalities we've already begun to transition responsibility for security to the Afghan people. In the face of violence and intimidation, Afghans are fighting and dying for their country, establishing local police forces, opening markets and schools, creating new opportunities for women and girls, and trying to turn the page on decades of war.

Of course, huge challenges remain. This is the beginning—but not the end—of our effort to wind down this war. We'll have to do the hard work of keeping the gains that we've made, while we draw down our forces and transition responsibility for security to the Afghan government. And next May, in Chicago, we will host a summit with our NATO allies and partners to shape the next phase of this transition.

We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and security forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: No safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland or our allies. We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people, and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures—one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. We'll work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keeps its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us. They cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.

My fellow Americans, this has been a difficult decade for our country. We've learned anew the profound cost of war—a cost that's been paid by the nearly 4,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq, and the over 1,500 who have done so in Afghanistan—men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they defended. Thousands more have been wounded. Some have lost limbs on the battlefield, and others still battle the demons that have followed them home.

Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. We've ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.

As they do, we must learn their lessons. Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America's engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.

We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America's singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force—but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don't have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we're doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their own destiny.

In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power—it is the principles upon which our union was founded. We're a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law, and respecting the rights of all our citizens. We protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others. We stand not for empire, but for self-determination. That is why we have a stake in the democratic aspirations that are now washing across the Arab world. We will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity.

Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens here at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America's greatest resource—our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach.

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

In this effort, we draw inspiration from our fellow Americans who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. To our troops, our veterans and their families, I speak for all Americans when I say that we will keep our sacred trust with you, and provide you with the care and benefits and opportunity that you deserve.

I met some of these patriotic Americans at Fort Campbell. A while back, I spoke to the 101st Airborne that has fought to turn the tide in Afghanistan, and to the team that took out Osama bin Laden. Standing in front of a model of bin Laden's compound, the Navy SEAL who led that effort paid tribute to those who had been lost— brothers and sisters in arms whose names are now written on bases where our troops stand guard overseas, and on headstones in quiet corners of our country where their memory will never be forgotten. This officer—like so many others I've met on bases, in Baghdad and Bagram, and at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital—spoke with humility about how his unit worked together as one, depending on each other, and trusting one another, as a family might do in a time of peril.

That's a lesson worth remembering— that we are all a part of one American family. Though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the United States of America is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. Now, let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. With confidence in our cause, with faith in our fellow citizens, and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America—for this generation, and the next.

May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar and to all the members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be back here with you in the Senate. As the President said last night, the United States is meeting the goals he set for our three-track strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The military surge has ramped up pressure on al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents. The civilian surge has bolstered the Afghan and Pakistani Governments, economies, and civil societies, and undercut the pull of the insurgency. The diplomatic surge is supporting Afghan-led efforts to reach a political solution that will chart a more secure future.

All three surges—military, civilian, and diplomatic—are part of the vision for transition that NATO endorsed in Lisbon last December and that President Obama reaffirmed last night. As he said, Afghans must take responsibility for their own future.

Today, I want to amplify on the President's statement and update you specifically on our civilian efforts. And I also look forward to answering your questions about the road ahead. Because despite the progress, we have to stay focused on the mission. As the President said, “We have to put al-Qaida on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done.”

First, let me say a word about the military effort. Last night, the President explained his plan to begin drawing down our forces next month and transitioning to Afghan responsibility. I will leave it to my colleagues from the Defense Department to discuss the specifics. But the bottom line, as the President said, is that we have broken the Taliban's momentum. So we do begin this drawdown from a position of strength.

With respect to the civilian surge, we greatly appreciate the attention that this committee has devoted to it. Because improving governance, creating economic opportunity, supporting civil society is vital to solidifying our military gains and advancing our political and diplomatic goals.

Since January 2009, we have tripled the number of diplomats, development experts, and other civilian specialists on the ground in Afghanistan, and we have expanded our presence out in the field nearly six-fold. And these new civilians have changed the way we do business, focusing on key ministries and sectors, and holding ourselves and our partners to higher standards.

And there should be no doubt about the results of our investment, despite the very difficult circumstances that you all know so well. Economic growth is up, opium production is down. Under the Taliban, only 900,000 boys and no girls were enrolled in schools. By 2010, 7.1 million students were enrolled, and nearly 40 percent of them girls.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers have been trained and equipped with new seeds and other techniques. Afghan women have used more than 100,000 micro finance loans. Infant mortality is down 22 percent.

Now, what do these numbers and others that I could quote tell us?

First, that despite the many challenges that remain, life is better for most Afghans. And the Karzai government has many failings, to be sure. But more people, in every research analysis we are privy to, say they see progress in their streets, their schools, their fields. And we remain committed to fighting corruption and strengthening the rule of law in a very challenging environment.

The aim of the civilian surge was to give Afghans a stake in their country's future and provide credible alternatives to extremism and insurgency. It was not nor was it ever designed to solve all of Afghanistan's development challenges. Measured against the goals we set and considering the obstacles we faced, we are and should be encouraged by what we have accomplished.

And most important, the civilian surge helped advance our military and political objectives. Let me just offer one example. Last November, USAID began funding the reconstruction of irrigation systems in Wardak province, providing jobs for hundreds of workers and water to thousands of farmers. In March, just a few months ago, insurgents demanded that the people abandon the project and support the spring offensive. The people refused. Why? Because they asked themselves, “Should we trade new opportunities for a better life for more violence and chaos?” Frustrated, the insurgents threatened to attack the project. Local shuras mobilized and sent back a clear message: “We want this work to continue. Interfere and you will become our enemy.” And the insurgents backed down.

We have now reached the height of the civilian surge. Any effort of this size and scope will face considerable logistical challenges. And we have worked hard in the last two and a half years to strengthen oversight and improve effectiveness. We have, frankly, learned many lessons, and we are applying them. And the efforts of our civilians on the ground, working in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable, continues to be nothing short of extraordinary. Looking ahead as the transition proceeds, we are shifting our efforts from short-term stabilization projects, largely as part of the military strategy, to longer-term sustainable development that focuses on spurring growth and integrating Afghanistan into South Central Asia's economy.

Now, the third surge is our diplomatic surge. It is diplomatic efforts in support of an Afghan-led political process that aims to shatter the alliance between the Taliban and al-Qaida, end the insurgency, and help to produce more stability. To begin, we are working with the Afghans on a new strategic partnership declaration that will provide a long-term framework for bilateral cooperation and NATO cooperation, as agreed to, again, at Lisbon. And it will bolster Afghan and regional confidence that Afghanistan will not again become a safe haven for terrorists and an arena for competing regional interests.

As the President said last night, this will ensure we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan Government. It will also provide a backdrop for reconciliation with insurgents who must meet clear red lines—they must renounce violence, they must abandon al-Qaida, and they must abide by the constitution of Afghanistan, including its protections for women. As I said in February in the speech I gave outlining this strategy, those are the necessary outcomes of any negotiation.

In the last four months, this Afghan-led political process has gained momentum. Twenty-seven Provincial Peace Councils have been established in Afghanistan, and the Afghan High Peace Council has stepped up its efforts to engage civil society and women, even as it also begins reaching out to insurgents. And let me underscore something which you will not be surprised to hear me say, but I say it not because of my personal feelings but because of my strategic assessment: Including women and civil society in this process is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart and strategic thing to do as well. Any potential for peace will be subverted if women or ethnic minorities are marginalized or silenced. And the United States will not abandon our values or support a political process that undoes the social progress that has been made in the past decade.

But we believe that a political solution that meets these conditions is possible. The United States has a broad range of contacts at many levels across Afghanistan and the region, that we are leveraging to support this effort, including very preliminary outreach to members of the Taliban. This is not a pleasant business, but a necessary one, because history tells us that a combination of military pressure, economic opportunity, and an inclusive political and diplomatic process is the best way to end insurgencies. With bin Ladin dead and al-Qaida's remaining leadership under enormous pressure, the choice facing the Taliban is clear: Be part of Afghanistan's future or face unrelenting assault. They cannot escape this choice.

Special Representative Marc Grossman is leading an active diplomatic effort to build support for a political solution. What we call the Core Group—Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States—has met twice and will convene again next week. At the same time, we are engaging the region around a common vision of an independent, stable Afghanistan and a region free of al-Qaida. We believe we've made progress with all of the neighbors, including India, Russia, and even Iran. Just this past Friday, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to support reconciliation by splitting its sanctions on al-Qaida and the Taliban into two separate lists, underscoring that the door is open for the insurgents to abandon the terrorists and choose a different path.

We welcome these steps, and for the United States the key diplomatic priority and indeed a lynchpin of this entire effort is closing the gap between Kabul and Islamabad. Pakistan must be part of this process. Earlier this month, the two countries launched a joint peace commission and held substantive talks at the highest levels. Also, very significant, was the full implementation on June 12^th of the Transit Trade Agreement, which will create new economic opportunity on both sides of the Durand Line and lay the foundation for a broader vision of regional economic integration and cooperation. This agreement started being negotiated in the early 1960s. It therefore took decades, including great, heroic effort by the late Richard Holbrooke and his team. But the trucks are now rolling across the border.

I recently visited Pakistan and had, as we say in diplo-speak, very candid discussions with its leaders. The United States has clear expectations for this relationship, and as President Obama said last night, the United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who kill Americans. We are looking to Pakistan to take concrete actions on the goals we share: Defeating violent extremism, which has also taken so many innocent Pakistani lives; ending the conflict in Afghanistan; and securing a stable, democratic, prosperous future.

Now, these are obviously tough questions to ask of the Pakistanis and there are many causes for frustration. But we should not overlook the positive steps of just recent weeks since May 2^nd: Counterterrorism cooperation continues and several very key extremists have been killed or captured. As I told the Pakistanis, America cannot and should not try to solve Pakistan's problems; they have to eventually do that themselves. But nor can we walk away from this relationship and ignore the consequences, for all the reasons that Senator Lugar outlined in his opening statement: Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state sitting at the crossroads of a strategic region. And we have seen this movie before. We have seen the cost of disengaging from the region. As Secretary Gates, who was there at that time, has stressed, we cannot repeat the mistakes of 1989.

That's why it's important we have the resources to continue implementing our strategy. The State Department is following the Pentagon's model and creating a special emergency fund—an Overseas Contingency Operations account—that separates normal operating costs from extraordinary wartime expenses. Now, I will hasten to say we are painfully aware of today's fiscal reality. And I know that it is tempting for some to peel off the civilian and diplomatic elements of our strategy. They obviously make fewer headlines; people don't know as much about them. And it would be a terrible mistake, and I'm not saying that just for myself, but as our commanders on the ground will tell you, the three surges work hand-in-hand. You cannot cut or limit one and expect the other two to succeed.

Ultimately, I believe we are saving money and, much more importantly, lives by investing now. And let's not forget: An entire year of civilian assistance in Afghanistan costs Americans the same amount as 10 days of military operations.

So Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss our strategy. There have been a lot of developments in the last months and I feel that what we are doing is working. But it is obviously important that we ask the hard questions, and I look forward to working with you to improve the strategy and work together to implement it.

Thank you very much.