FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT
December 28, 2014
Statement by the President on the End of the Combat Mission in Afghanistan
Today's ceremony in Kabul marks a milestone for our country. For more than 13 years, ever since nearly 3,000 innocent lives were taken from us on 9/11, our nation has been at war in Afghanistan. Now, thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion.
On this day we give thanks to our troops and intelligence personnel who have been relentless against the terrorists responsible for 9/11--devastating the core al Qaeda leadership, delivering justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupting terrorist plots and saving countless American lives. We are safer, and our nation is more secure, because of their service. At the same time, our courageous military and diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan--along with our NATO allies and coalition partners--have helped the Afghan people reclaim their communities, take the lead for their own security, hold historic elections and complete the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history.
We honor the profound sacrifices that have made this progress possible. We salute every American--military and civilian, including our dedicated diplomats and development workers--who have served in Afghanistan, many on multiple tours, just as their families have sacrificed at home. We pledge to give our many wounded warriors, with wounds seen and unseen, the world-class care and treatment they have earned. Most of all, we remember the more than 2,200 American patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, and we pledge to stand with their Gold Star families who need the everlasting love and support of a grateful nation.
Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States--along with our allies and partners--will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. Our personnel will continue to face risks, but this reflects the enduring commitment of the United States to the Afghan people and to a united, secure and sovereign Afghanistan that is never again used as a source of attacks against our nation.
These past 13 years have tested our nation and our military. But compared to the nearly 180,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan when I took office, we now have fewer than 15,000 in those countries. Some 90 percent of our troops are home. Our military remains the finest in the world, and we will remain vigilant against terrorist attacks and in defense of the freedoms and values we hold dear. And with growing prosperity here at home, we enter a new year with new confidence, indebted to our fellow Americans in uniform who keep us safe and free.
Showing posts with label 9-11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9-11. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
AG HOLDER CHAMPIONS PROGRAM TO COUNTER VIOLENT EXTREMISTS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, September 15, 2014
Attorney General Holder Announces Pilot Program to Counter Violent Extremists
“Today, few threats are more urgent than the threat posed by violent extremism,” Attorney General said in a video message posted on the Justice Department’s website. “And with the emergence of groups like ISIL, and the knowledge that some Americans are attempting to travel to countries like Syria and Iraq to take part in ongoing conflicts, the Justice Department is responding appropriately.”
The complete text of the Attorney General’s video message is below:
“Last week, millions of Americans paused to mark the 13th anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 – the deadliest acts of terror ever carried out on American soil. For my colleagues at every level of our nation’s Department of Justice, and for me, this anniversary was also a solemn reminder of our most important obligation: to ensure America’s national security and protect the American people from a range of evolving threats.
“Today, few threats are more urgent than the threat posed by violent extremism. And with the emergence of groups like ISIL, and the knowledge that some Americans are attempting to travel to countries like Syria and Iraq to take part in ongoing conflicts, the Justice Department is responding appropriately.
“Through law enforcement agencies like the FBI, American authorities are working with our international partners and Interpol to disseminate information on foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, including individuals who have traveled from the United States. We have established processes for detecting American extremists who attempt to join terror groups abroad. And we have engaged in extensive outreach to communities here in the U.S. – so we can work with them to identify threats before they emerge, to disrupt homegrown terrorists, and to apprehend would-be violent extremists. But we can – and we must – do even more.
“Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice is partnering with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center to launch a new series of pilot programs in cities across the nation. These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States Attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe. Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country.
“Already, since 2012, our U.S. Attorneys have held or attended more than 1,700 engagement-related events or meetings to enhance trust and facilitate communication in their neighborhoods and districts. This innovative new pilot initiative will build on that important work. And the White House will be hosting a Countering Violent Extremism summit in October to highlight these and other domestic and international efforts. Ultimately, the pilot programs will enable us to develop more effective – and more inclusive – ways to help build the more just, secure, and free society that all Americans deserve.
“As we move forward together, our work must continue to be guided by the core democratic values – and the ideals of freedom, openness, and inclusion – that have always set this nation apart on the world stage. We must be both innovative and aggressive in countering violent extremism and combating those who would sow intolerance, division, and hate – not just within our borders, but with our international partners on a global scale. And we must never lose sight of what violent extremists fear the most: the strength of our communities; our unwavering respect for equality, civil rights, and civil liberties; and our enduring commitment to justice, democracy, and the rule of law.”
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Saturday, September 13, 2014
ARMY GEN. JACOBY'S REFELCTIONS ON 9-11
Right: Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, addresses nearly 700 service members and community leaders from across Colorado Springs at the 9/11 Commemoration held at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, Sept. 11, 2014. U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Andy Bellamy
ISIL Fight Fitting Backdrop to 9/11 Reflections, Jacoby Says
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2014 – International efforts of the United States to deal effectively and decisively with the scourge of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists is a fitting backdrop to reflections taken on a mountain in Colorado on the 13th anniversary of 9/11, the commander of U.S. Northern Command said today.
President Barack Obama unveiled a plan last night for the United States, along with an international coalition, to defeat the terrorist group.
Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., the commander of the 56-year-old North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, and U.S. Northern Command, established after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, spoke this afternoon during the first Colorado Springs Combined Military 9/11 Commemoration at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station in Colorado Springs.
NORAD is a binational military command formally established in 1958 by the United States and Canada to monitor and defend North American airspace. A maritime warning mission was added in 2006.
Canadian Defense Minster Rob Nicholson also spoke at the event, along with Melodie Homer, widow of United Airlines Flight 93 pilot LeRoy W. Homer Jr.
“As we work to build a coalition to confront the ISIS threat,” Jacoby said in his opening remarks, using an acronym by which the terrorists also are known, “we also reflect on how, on 9/11, America’s friends and allies stood by us shoulder to shoulder, and we can say with certainty that no one has stood by us closer than our Canadian partners.”
Jacoby introduced the Canadian defense minister by noting that Canada is leading the way in the world response to what he called “the latest manifestation of murderous extremist ideology.”
Truly, the general added, “we know no better friends than our Canadian neighbors.”
“Today we remember more than 2,700 Americans, 24 Canadians and more than 350 other victims from around the world who tragically lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001,” Nicholson said. Canadians were shocked at the audacity and cruelty of the attacks and horrified by the invasion of North America, the defense minister added, “a continent we believed was relatively safe and distant from the threat of terrorism.”
Swift reaction
The Canadian sense of security was shattered, but NORAD’s reaction was swift, he said. Nearly 200 armed aircraft were deployed into U.S. skies, and all nonessential U.S. air traffic was grounded. Canada responded by receiving 293 flights that were to have landed in the United States until the grounding order came.
“Canadians across the country opened up their hearts and homes to more than 33,000 stranded travelers,” Nicholson said, “offering them shelter, food and comfort. The actions of Canadians that day stand as a powerful example of the Canadian-U.S. relationship.”
U.S.-Canadian defense cooperation grew stronger during years of military engagement in Afghanistan, he added, and by the time Canada withdrew from Afghanistan in March, 40,000 of its men and women had fought there – the largest deployment of Canadian military personnel since World War II.
The two nations also work together to bring peace to the region during Russia’s aggressive military actions and provocation of Ukraine, and as participants in NATO’s reassurance measures to promote security and stability in central and eastern Europe, Nicholson said.
Both nations also work together at home, the defense minister added, intensifying their joint training and exercise regime and making important investments in counterterrorism and intelligence capabilities to better detect, prevent and address potential threats.
“This is why it is especially meaningful to be here at NORAD to mark the 13th anniversary of Sept. 11,” Nicholson said. “Seeing Canadian and American military personnel working side by side at this impressive facility is a testament to the fact that our defense partnership accords us greater security than we could ever achieve alone. We pledge to continue our work to reinforce our joint defense of the continent so that we may never see such a terrible day again.”
A widow remembers
Next, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of Air Force Space Command, introduced Melodie Homer, widow of Leroy W. Homer Jr., first officer of United Airlines Flight 93.
The morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the crew and passengers of his flight attempted to overtake four hijackers before crashing into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, rather than its intended target, the U.S. Capitol.
Homer founded the Leroy W. Homer Foundation in 2002 in memory of her husband, a 1987 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. The foundation encourages young adults who wish to pursue aviation careers by awarding flight scholarships.
She’s president and founder of the foundation, works as a clinical nursing instructor and has 20 years of nursing experience in the United States and Canada, where she was born.
In her remarks, Homer described the day 13 years ago that her husband of more than three years left for work and never came home. Their daughter was 10 months old.
“To this day, I think it’s hard for us to conceptualize the loss of 2,973 lives,” she said. “Using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction to take innocent lives and destroy symbols of this country’s freedoms was unimaginable.”
Gratitude for protection
Both governments worked quickly, Homer added.
“Homeland Security was created, NORAD was working with the Canadian government to keep the airspace safe for North America, and I say on behalf of both countries, we are grateful for your protection and for keeping us safe for the past 13 years,” she said.
“On occasions such as this we are reminded that we do have to continue to be vigilant,” Homer added. “Those who wish to harm our way of life will never stop trying.”
As Homer finished her remarks, Jacoby stepped forward and presented her with a piece of granite that he described as “blasted from the heart of our beautiful Cheyenne Mountain.” He said the rock “represents the Cold War generation that had the strength and courage to prevail against the threat of that era, and it provides us strength and inspiration to prevail against the threats today.”
Honoring those lost
Sharing his own thoughts, the general said that the 700 U.S. and Canadian service members and state and local leaders were there today first to remember and honor the lives lost on September 11, 2001, “as are millions of others across the country and around the world. We have done that every year, and we’ll always do it, and we always must.”
Jacoby added, “Today as we continue to fight against another ideological extremist terrorist organization, I would argue that remembering how we felt on 9/11, remembering our commitment, has never been more relevant.”
The general said Americans may have lost feelings of invulnerability and innocence but gained things as well.
“We rolled up our sleeves as nations of strong communities and we committed to doing whatever it took to answer the challenges to our safety, to our security and to our pride, like generations before us have done,” he said.
A dangerous world
The world has changed significantly in the 13 years since 9/11 but it remains a very dangerous place, Jacoby added. “You only need to watch the morning news or attend my daily intel brief to know that’s true.”
The faces and locations of extremism have changed but the senseless violence and hatred in its heart has not, he said, “and the families of James Foley and Steven Sotloff are in our thoughts today.”
The free nations of the world are more vulnerable than ever, the general said, “even while our hearts and our spirit remain as they were on Sept. 10, inclined toward peace and cooperation.”
The fights of the last 13 years have been difficult and the challenge remains, but there are more fights ahead, Jacoby added.
“We must look to the inspiration as well as the tragedy of 9/ll to keep us faithful to our values, firm in our commitments and steadfast in our hopes,” he said.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Thursday, September 4, 2014
PRESIDENT OBAMA CONTINUES NATIONAL EMERGENCY REGARDING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S.
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Continuation of the National Emergency Notice
NOTICE
- - - - - - -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2014. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
BARACK OBAMA
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
PRESS BRIEFING ON THE 1230 REPORT ON PROGRESS IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia Pacific Security Affairs Dr. Peter Lavoy and Deputy to the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Jarrett Blanc
July 30, 2013
Department of Defense Press Briefing on the July 2013 Section 1230 Report, "Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan" in the Pentagon Briefing Room
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETER LAVOY: It's a pleasure to be here. It's a pleasure to talk about this report that is coming out today. And it's a pleasure to be here joined by my colleague, the deputy SRAP [Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan], Jarrett Blanc from State Department. The State Department's input to the 1230 report is very important, it's very critical, and they're a good partner on this effort, as well as on everything else.
Let me make a few introductory remarks and then get into questions that you might have about the report or about issues that have occurred subsequently in Afghanistan.
Going back, you'll recall that we undertook military operations in Afghanistan because the country was the base for terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11. Let's not forget that. That's why we went there. And we've made tremendous progress.
And you know personally that we don't feel under the same kind of threat today in the United States and elsewhere in the world, many parts of the world, than we did over a decade ago. And it's because of the sacrifices we've made in and around Afghanistan to diminish that terrorist threat and the hard work of American men and women, our coalition partners, and Afghans and others in the region.
The progress we've made in Afghanistan really would have been practically unimaginable five years ago. In fact, I came to Washington about five years ago, and I couldn't imagine that we'd be in the situation we are today. And it really is a situation -- I think we're very near to achieving the objectives we set out at that time before.
Back then, five years ago, in 2008, it was questionable whether the government would survive. Elections were coming up in a year, in 2009. Would these elections occur? Would they be peaceful? Would you have a new representative government coming in? We're asking similar questions today about elections that will be occurring next year.
The ISAF surge over the past three years has put the Afghan government firmly in control of all of Afghanistan's major cities and provincial capitals and has driven the insurgency into the countryside. That wasn't the situation five years ago. So this document is a six-month snapshot, if you will, from October 2012 to March 2013 and documents the progress and, frankly, the challenges that we experience in that time period, but, again, I wanted to put that in brief historical perspective.
The tasks that we have today is to consolidate the gains that we've made, to support the ANSF, to pressure the remnants of Al Qaida, and to create sustainable security and stability, so that Afghanistan is never again used as a platform for international terrorists.
I'd like to highlight three themes that emerged from this report. First, the conflict in Afghanistan had shifted -- shifted during this time period, again, October '12 through March 2013, into a fundamentally new phase. It's a phase marked by the United States and its ISAF partners moving into a support role, moving away from the leading combat instrument in the country, changing our mission from counterinsurgency to one of supporting the Afghan army and the Afghan police from a train, advise and assist role. That's a fundamental shift.
And what we've seen since the cutoff of information in March 2013 is this year's fighting season in Afghanistan, the first fighting season where the ANSF were fully out in the lead throughout their country, providing security for Afghans. And they've done a good job.
And I'm happy to talk about the situation after the cutoff of information in this report if you'd like to get into that, too. But what you know now is that ISAF hardly conducts any combat missions anymore. Their operational role is primarily focused on that train, advise and assist, although we do remain -- we do continue to do some counterterrorism operations and force protection operations ourselves.
The second major trend or theme that emerged in this time period was the incredible improvement of the ANSF itself, the growth of professionalism and patriotism and a very capable Army and police force. These are developments that, again, were hard to imagine. People questioned whether they were achievable goals, and we set about developing these goals back in 2009. But I think that the evidence that we've identified -- and, again, what we've seen to date -- has proven that the ANSF, which basically went through a phase of growing, getting to an end strength of close to the authorized level of 352,000 forces combined army and police, now focusing on quality, demonstrating combat proficiency, and doing the other things that modern militaries do, that we're seeing them do this, but, again, in a way where they are proud of their work, the country is proud of their capability and their performance, they are increasingly patriotic, they're not animated by local ethnic or tribal allegiances, but really by a sense of the whole of Afghanistan. And they've -- the army, I think, has emerged into the strongest institution in the entire country.
The third trend is a -- really, the operational reflection of that second point, is that as they've gone out and taken on the lead for security in the country, they've performed very, very well. They've been tested. The Taliban have targeted the ANSF. The Taliban have tried to identify weaknesses of the ANSF. They've tried to intimidate the ANSF. They target, they overrun checkpoints, but -- and the vast majority of the cases, the army or the police get back to those checkpoints, retake the territory lost, and hold those positions.
Now, they've suffered a lot of casualties. Today, the ANSF probably suffers more than 30 to 1 ISAF casualties. So that's a significant change in that ratio of casualties over the last couple of years, as they've moved into the lead of security. Despite that, they are doing a very good job there. They're a very resilient force, and they're out there really providing the security of the population.
I'd like to identify three challenges that we see going forward and really focus on three key strategic questions and then turn it over to you for questions that you might have to Jarrett and myself. I think -- and the questions that really focus on this year, 2013, next year, 2014, and then, finally, 2015.
I think the biggest question this year -- and I think we already have the answer to this -- can the Afghan security forces actually provide for the security of their population? Here we have an unqualified yes. It's an affirmative answer. They are securing the cities and the villages in the country.
Now, to be honest, they have lost some territory in the rural areas, where they have limited reach, and the Taliban have retaken some areas, northern Helmand, in particular, but generally in the areas of priority, in the populated areas, they've really done a very, very good job. So that's the answer yes to that question.
The second issue in 2014 -- obviously, the key strategic event next year will be the presidential elections in April 2014. So the question for the Afghan security forces, will they be able to secure that election? And I think right now, it's a little early to tell, but my sense is that the answer will, indeed, be yes again.
Right now, the level of preparations for securing that election, not to mention the other issues that Jarrett can talk about in terms of electoral preparations, were farther ahead of where we this time before the 2009 elections.
The other issue is that the ANSF is really taking on this mission as a matter of pride and priority to secure these elections. And you have -- a final factor is you have -- I think in April 2014, you'll have about 425,000 security forces in country, the vast majority of them being ANSF, a small minority being ISAF, compared to about 250,000 that were in Afghanistan that were tasked with securing the 2009 elections. So you have a strength now to do this, as well as a focus and a level of preparation that you didn't have before. So going forward, I think -- I'd like to say that I think that strategic issue, the answer is likely to be yes.
And then the final issue -- and it's really one for that transition period of 2014 to 2015 -- is whether we can succeed in transitioning to a much smaller Western or coalition presence, U.S. presence and transition over to ANSF to really take on the sovereign responsibility for the country. And, again, it's early to see. I think there are a number of challenges. There are a number of risks to that. And those are ones that we're -- we're definitely focused on here in the department and elsewhere in the U.S. government.
So with that as a general orientation, I open it up to questions for us.
COLONEL STEVE WARREN: We'll start off with Bob Burns from Associated Press.
Q: Hello, thanks for doing this. Particularly thanks for doing it on the record. It's a good change from...
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Don't make me regret it, Bob. (Laughter.)
Q: On your point you made earlier about the improved or greater national allegiance of the ANSF, there's a section in the report that describes cease-fire deals that are being done on -- in some local areas between Afghan units and insurgent groups and other kinds of accommodations being made with the Taliban. You described -- the report describes this as a developing issue that requires monitoring. On the one hand, it says it's not a major problem, but it can have negative effects. It seems a bit of a wishy-washy approach to explaining what's going on there. Could you elaborate a bit more on -- is this a new development? And since March when this report cuts off, has it been happening more often, less often?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think it's not at all a new -- a new element. I mean, going back into Afghan history, there have always been, you know, vigorous fighting, then followed by peace arrangements, cease-fires, and then new -- hopefully new political understandings.
Even with ISAF forces, I think it's been actually more problematic at times, where we found out subsequently that some unit has cut some -- made some arrangement with local -- the local population, possibly including the Taliban. That's been problematic. We don't see that occurring as much today.
Look, the -- the Afghans are providing security for their own population. They need to get along with that population. They need to have an understanding with the population. They're not a foreign force. They're not a force liberating that population. They're protecting the population. So there needs to be understandings.
I think generally this is desirable. It depends on the specifics -- and I can't really get into those specifics now of particular cases, but I think on the whole, as we said in this, maybe it sounds wishy-washy, but as we said, it does deserve, you know, close attention, generally can be positive. If deals are cut for the wrong reasons, that could be negative.
And ultimately, stability and peace will be achieved in Afghanistan by these deals being cut, either from the center or, you know, in regions. So I don't really see this as a particularly problematic trend. And, frankly, it is a traditionally Afghanistan trend.
Q: Is it gaining momentum in more recent months?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I really can't tell you. I haven't -- I don't have the evidence of that. I mean, it's something that we're looking at and -- you know, the next time we're together, I'd be happy to follow up with you about that.
COL. WARREN: So we'll go to Tony next.
Q: A question on page two. You had this interesting sentence that beyond December '14, ANSF will still require substantial training, advising and assistance, including financial support to address ongoing shortcomings. It's never addressed again in the full report. What's the implication there for U.S. forces to -- the size of U.S. forces or the need for U.S. forces post-2014? As you know, there's been some debate about a zero option. This sort of knocks that -- knocks the legs out of that option, it seems, but I wanted to get your view.
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Okay, well, thanks for that question. Let me explain the information in there in that sentence and put it in perspective. As I mentioned very briefly, we've seen a really rapid, remarkable development of the Afghan national security forces. Initially, the focus was just simply trying to recruit and field a force of people with adequate literacy and training to do the job. We succeeded in that phase. Then the focus was improving the quality and the combat performance effectiveness of that force, and that's being proven this year.
The phase that we're really focused on now is the sustainability of the force. Will that force -- will there be some institutions, whether at the core level or the ministerial level, that makes sure that people get their paychecks, that -- you always the soldiers to get their paychecks on time -- to make sure that they're fed, to make sure that fuel contracts are developed. These are the kind of functional skills and capabilities that Afghans are still developing today.
And we envision that it will take a period of time before they can adequately fully have sovereign ownership of all those skill sets, including well beyond the 2014 date. That's why, as we've looked at a number of options that we've prepared in this building, in concert with our interagency partners for interagency consideration, these have taken into account the train, advise and assist functions, in addition to our own U.S. counterterrorism mission set going forward. But these would focus less on combat proficiency and really focus more on these functional skill developments at the -- at the core and then ministerial level. We envision that will take a period of time.
So you also asked about the zero option. In one of these cases have we developed an option that is zero. Now, if we don't get the permission of the Afghan government in the form of a bilateral security agreement, then we're not going to be able to continue this job of working with ANSF. And so then you end up with zero.
Q: Just -- to follow up, though, this does portend the use -- U.S. troops in some form, some form or number, staying beyond 2014 to help with these sometimes mundane, but vital functions?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: That's correct. And that is our intention.
Q: Thank you.
COL. WARREN: We'll go to Phil, and then in the back.
Q: Just a quick follow-up, before that, you said whether -- assessing whether the gains that have been made are sustainable, it doesn't just depend on whether there is a force, but it depends on the size or the structure of that force. Can you explain a bit about how the size and the structure, particularly the structure of that force, matters when assessing whether the gains of the war can be (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah. Now, when you say that force, you're referring to ISAF or U.S. forces?
Q: (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, it will matter. But we're also looking at a moving target. The ANSF -- we're seeing for the first time their performance on the battlefield as the lead combat instrument, security instrument in the country. So our calculations on what will be required beyond 2014 will probably vary after the end of this fighting season than they -- compared to when we first thought about this issue a year ago or even before. So we're anticipating -- making anticipations on the requirements, on the needs of the Afghan national security forces, and these have changed over time, because you've been looking at a moving target. We have much more fidelity today than we had over a year ago, let's say.
As you know, the president has not made a decision on what that force will be. And the president's wanted to look -- wants to look at a number of factors that will take place this year currently and possibly going into the future and see how -- and particularly the key factor is the performance of the Afghan national security forces. So taking into account all of these factors, there will be a decision on what forces appropriate to the tasks at hand.
Q: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. My question is that things are not going very well in the region, especially in Afghanistan, according to Afghan people, because they have been suffering for the last 30-plus years civil wars, Taliban wars, Al Qaida wars, and so on. My question is that Afghanistan will be going elections next year, so will be India, or in India could be earlier, and also Pakistan -- now they had just elections and new prime minister.
My question is that, can you have stability and peace like they had in the '70s and a fruitful country of Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan? Because the Taliban is still in Pakistan. Now they are fighting in Syria and other countries. What that's saying is -- and they are waiting when the U.S. and NATO forces leave Afghanistan and they will focus their fighting in Afghanistan, because what they're saying is they have not learned anything but to kill people and fight.
My question is here, what role do you think Pakistan will play and what role India will play in the region, sir?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think both Pakistan and India will play and ought to play very important, significant roles going forward in Afghanistan. Those countries and other immediate and nearby neighbors of Afghanistan are affected by the security conditions in Afghanistan. Borders, as you know, are very porous in this part of the world. They're affected by it, and they in turn affect security and political developments inside Afghanistan.
This is a very interdependent region, if you will, from that point of view. And what you have today is a growing sense, as you indicated, of insecurity throughout the region, in central Asia, even north of there, Russia and other places in China, but most acutely in Pakistan and India.
There's a fear in India that there will be what is called as a surplus terrorism. After there is some stability in Afghanistan, where will these terrorists go? Will they target India?
They have the exact same fears in Pakistan. Pakistan is now facing a very vibrant insurgency in its country. They're about 150,000 Pakistani military in western Pakistan fighting this insurgency. They're concerned that if there is further instability in Afghanistan, this could heighten the insurgency, be motivational or provide some safe haven for insurgents to come over into Pakistan.
So everyone in the region has these concerns. And I think -- and this is really something where my diplomatic colleagues are taking the lead -- is to try to harmonize the policies of each of the countries in the region to try to achieve a common end purpose, a common situation of peace and stability in Afghanistan and, more broadly, throughout the region. And there are challenges, but generally I think it's going well.
Q: Just a quick follow, sir, quickly, recently there have been very high-level visits to India (inaudible) Secretary Hagel recently and then Secretary Kerry and now recently Vice President Biden. And they were all talking about the security and U.S.-India relations, military-to-military, and so forth, and also, of course, Afghanistan. What do you think now there is a firing going on, on the India-Pakistan border, heavy fighting in the region of Kashmir? What do you think will escalate? Or what U.S. -- been talking to India when they were visiting or they're -- are they talking about these problems on the border?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's really for the countries in the region to manage their own relationships. These are the countries that are most directly affected. And the situation -- we view the situation in Kashmir as a bilateral situation for India and Pakistan to sort out.
And regrettably, there has been violence in -- along the line of control in Kashmir for many years, for many decades now, and that's very, very regrettable. But, again, we believe -- you mentioned earlier that, with the election of President Nawaz Sharif, there have been overtures made by the Pakistanis to the Indians and vice versa to try to normalize the situation economically and reach some kind of political understanding. And I know we in the U.S. government fully support those efforts.
COL. WARREN: Blue tie, state your name and organization?
Q: Dion Nissenbaum with the Wall Street Journal. One of the weakest links in the effort has been corruption, as you know. And the report goes into a fair amount of detail about corruption at the regional level by a corrupt network running out of Kabul International Airport. I imagine Shafafiyat and those efforts are winding down, how concerned are you that as the ISAF efforts winds up, that corruption could overwhelm the efforts to reform the ANSF? And are you seeing it increase as ISAF winds up its efforts?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Corruption is a critical concern. It has been -- it remains one. And it probably will be a concern going forward. There is some -- I'm not trying to justify it, but there historically has been level of influence-peddling, what we would call corruption, in this country. There are certain socially accepted standards that differ, obviously, from our standards.
But then there's clearly abusive corruption, very corrosive, toxic corruption that's taking place. And it is a priority. What's very heartening to us is that this is a priority for the Afghan ministerial leadership that we deal with. Secretary Hagel's counterparts are the minister of defense and the minister of interior. And in their conversations and other DOD officials with these individuals, they've identified anti-corruption as a priority for them.
They've changed out leaders. B.K. Mohammadi, the minister of defense, has made a really deliberate effort after he took over to change out leaders, to improve not only performance and the quality of forces under new leadership, but to root out corruption, which does have many negative consequences, if you allow it to fester.
COL. WARREN: Let's go to Thom Shanker, and then we'll finish with Gordon Lubold.
Q: (OFF-MIC) on March 31st, which is the fighting season hadn't really gotten underway. All of us in this room understand the tyranny of deadlines, don't get me wrong. But if your deadline were today, are there any trends, especially among the security forces, that you would capture in this report in light of the current fighting season?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I'd say -- I'd probably point to three trends, and I did allude to them. Number one, the security forces are out there doing the security job. This was kind of a question mark before this fighting season, because this is the first fighting season where the Afghan -- where the Afghan army and the police were actually in the lead. And they've acquitted themselves very, very well. As I mentioned, they've taken a lot of casualties. They've been tested by the insurgents, but they've done a good job standing up to those threats. So that's number one.
Number two -- and this is a challenge they're working through -- when they were partnered with American forces, they -- and ISAF forces -- they were partnered with the best military forces in the world. They were partnered with -- with units that had the best enabling support, whether it's mobility getting into a place, whether it's intelligence that gives you time-sensitive targeting on the threats, whether it's situational awareness, whether you know that there are other threats that could be emerging. And then after an engagement, how to get out of their mobility, to get out of there and medevac, getting people -- giving them that golden hour to get treatment. They're used to the state-of-the-art health care.
As we've pulled back and now Afghans are taking over not only lead for combat, they are now in the lead for getting their people around the country. They're in the lead for identifying -- you know, using their intelligence, analyzing their -- infusing and analyzing their intelligence, identifying targets, conducting the operations, designing the operations, and getting their people out of there.
So this has been a bit of an adjustment. I think generally it's been positive, but it's an adjustment away from U.S.-ISAF state-of-the-art standards in all these to something that's different in other cases. In many cases, they're finding local solutions that work just as well for their needs. They're finding local hospitals that they can take wounded soldiers to.
The third trend is also a bit of a challenge, but it's an anticipated and, frankly, a desirable challenge to have. It's the trend of the Afghans developing those functional capacities to provide for the logistical support of their troops, to provide for the human capital management, for managing the contracts and finances and budgeting and so forth. This is -- these are good problems to have.
Before, as I mentioned, we were concerned about fielding the force. Then we were concerned about the operational capacity and wherewithal of the force. Now we're concerned about these functional enabling attributes. This is a good problem. Again, as I said, our theme was we can really imagine having these challenges now. We thought we'd still be mired in some of those other challenges.
So going forward, I think the questions are, can the Afghan forces be able to sustain themselves at standards and with the kind of capacities that they can keep without being dependent on us?
COL. WARREN: So, last question from Gordon at Foreign Policy.
Q: Back to the 2014 question, the commitment of troops after 2014, as you know, there's a frustration that the administration hasn't articulated any number. And the zero option and all that aside, I'm curious -- you know, there's frustration from the Hill, from allies, from inside this building, why can't the administration say, "Here's our range," barring anything coming up, as you mentioned? Is there a point of diminishing returns in terms of holding out on this number and not just throwing it out there and saying, "This is what we're probably going to do at this point"? And also, are you confident that April will -- the elections will happen in April?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's hard to be confident about events that will happen months into the future. And I would just like to take your last question, make a point, and fully agree with the significance of that election. As you look forward, the -- another strategic risk, this -- this gentleman mentioned the neighborhood. I think that is a strategic risk. If the neighbors can't get along, that could undermine the security gains in Afghanistan.
The other strategic risk, if the political transition does not occur effectively, you could have a fragmentation of elite consensus in the country, political consensus, that could have reverberations in the military forces. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal military force. And so to some extent, like military forces in every country in the world, the cohesion of the force is largely dependent on the political cohesion of the society. And the election could open up schisms that would be problematic, if the -- if the political transition doesn't take place well.
So now only do -- are we very hopeful that the election will take place and doing everything we can, particularly Jarrett and my colleagues over at State Department, who have the lead in the U.S. government for supporting the Afghans in that, to support them in this election, but it does have a very strong impact on the security forces.
And then you asked the other question on our presence in -- decision-making about our presence to Afghanistan post-2014. It's a critical issue. It's something that, you know, we get asked about by countries, leaders of countries all around the world. The U.S. does have a position of leadership. It's had a position of leadership in Afghanistan. It does today. And it's likely to have that position of leadership in the future.
We want to make sure that the decisions that -- that are reached are sound and based on full information in a very dynamic environment and something that, you know, Americans can know are the right decisions to provide for that continuing security in the region so that our interests are protected, so that the terrorist threat to the United States, which has diminished significantly in the last decade, will continue to diminish and will not reoccur in the future.
COL. WARREN: Thank you guys very much.
Presenter: Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia Pacific Security Affairs Dr. Peter Lavoy and Deputy to the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Jarrett Blanc
July 30, 2013
Department of Defense Press Briefing on the July 2013 Section 1230 Report, "Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan" in the Pentagon Briefing Room
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETER LAVOY: It's a pleasure to be here. It's a pleasure to talk about this report that is coming out today. And it's a pleasure to be here joined by my colleague, the deputy SRAP [Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan], Jarrett Blanc from State Department. The State Department's input to the 1230 report is very important, it's very critical, and they're a good partner on this effort, as well as on everything else.
Let me make a few introductory remarks and then get into questions that you might have about the report or about issues that have occurred subsequently in Afghanistan.
Going back, you'll recall that we undertook military operations in Afghanistan because the country was the base for terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11. Let's not forget that. That's why we went there. And we've made tremendous progress.
And you know personally that we don't feel under the same kind of threat today in the United States and elsewhere in the world, many parts of the world, than we did over a decade ago. And it's because of the sacrifices we've made in and around Afghanistan to diminish that terrorist threat and the hard work of American men and women, our coalition partners, and Afghans and others in the region.
The progress we've made in Afghanistan really would have been practically unimaginable five years ago. In fact, I came to Washington about five years ago, and I couldn't imagine that we'd be in the situation we are today. And it really is a situation -- I think we're very near to achieving the objectives we set out at that time before.
Back then, five years ago, in 2008, it was questionable whether the government would survive. Elections were coming up in a year, in 2009. Would these elections occur? Would they be peaceful? Would you have a new representative government coming in? We're asking similar questions today about elections that will be occurring next year.
The ISAF surge over the past three years has put the Afghan government firmly in control of all of Afghanistan's major cities and provincial capitals and has driven the insurgency into the countryside. That wasn't the situation five years ago. So this document is a six-month snapshot, if you will, from October 2012 to March 2013 and documents the progress and, frankly, the challenges that we experience in that time period, but, again, I wanted to put that in brief historical perspective.
The tasks that we have today is to consolidate the gains that we've made, to support the ANSF, to pressure the remnants of Al Qaida, and to create sustainable security and stability, so that Afghanistan is never again used as a platform for international terrorists.
I'd like to highlight three themes that emerged from this report. First, the conflict in Afghanistan had shifted -- shifted during this time period, again, October '12 through March 2013, into a fundamentally new phase. It's a phase marked by the United States and its ISAF partners moving into a support role, moving away from the leading combat instrument in the country, changing our mission from counterinsurgency to one of supporting the Afghan army and the Afghan police from a train, advise and assist role. That's a fundamental shift.
And what we've seen since the cutoff of information in March 2013 is this year's fighting season in Afghanistan, the first fighting season where the ANSF were fully out in the lead throughout their country, providing security for Afghans. And they've done a good job.
And I'm happy to talk about the situation after the cutoff of information in this report if you'd like to get into that, too. But what you know now is that ISAF hardly conducts any combat missions anymore. Their operational role is primarily focused on that train, advise and assist, although we do remain -- we do continue to do some counterterrorism operations and force protection operations ourselves.
The second major trend or theme that emerged in this time period was the incredible improvement of the ANSF itself, the growth of professionalism and patriotism and a very capable Army and police force. These are developments that, again, were hard to imagine. People questioned whether they were achievable goals, and we set about developing these goals back in 2009. But I think that the evidence that we've identified -- and, again, what we've seen to date -- has proven that the ANSF, which basically went through a phase of growing, getting to an end strength of close to the authorized level of 352,000 forces combined army and police, now focusing on quality, demonstrating combat proficiency, and doing the other things that modern militaries do, that we're seeing them do this, but, again, in a way where they are proud of their work, the country is proud of their capability and their performance, they are increasingly patriotic, they're not animated by local ethnic or tribal allegiances, but really by a sense of the whole of Afghanistan. And they've -- the army, I think, has emerged into the strongest institution in the entire country.
The third trend is a -- really, the operational reflection of that second point, is that as they've gone out and taken on the lead for security in the country, they've performed very, very well. They've been tested. The Taliban have targeted the ANSF. The Taliban have tried to identify weaknesses of the ANSF. They've tried to intimidate the ANSF. They target, they overrun checkpoints, but -- and the vast majority of the cases, the army or the police get back to those checkpoints, retake the territory lost, and hold those positions.
Now, they've suffered a lot of casualties. Today, the ANSF probably suffers more than 30 to 1 ISAF casualties. So that's a significant change in that ratio of casualties over the last couple of years, as they've moved into the lead of security. Despite that, they are doing a very good job there. They're a very resilient force, and they're out there really providing the security of the population.
I'd like to identify three challenges that we see going forward and really focus on three key strategic questions and then turn it over to you for questions that you might have to Jarrett and myself. I think -- and the questions that really focus on this year, 2013, next year, 2014, and then, finally, 2015.
I think the biggest question this year -- and I think we already have the answer to this -- can the Afghan security forces actually provide for the security of their population? Here we have an unqualified yes. It's an affirmative answer. They are securing the cities and the villages in the country.
Now, to be honest, they have lost some territory in the rural areas, where they have limited reach, and the Taliban have retaken some areas, northern Helmand, in particular, but generally in the areas of priority, in the populated areas, they've really done a very, very good job. So that's the answer yes to that question.
The second issue in 2014 -- obviously, the key strategic event next year will be the presidential elections in April 2014. So the question for the Afghan security forces, will they be able to secure that election? And I think right now, it's a little early to tell, but my sense is that the answer will, indeed, be yes again.
Right now, the level of preparations for securing that election, not to mention the other issues that Jarrett can talk about in terms of electoral preparations, were farther ahead of where we this time before the 2009 elections.
The other issue is that the ANSF is really taking on this mission as a matter of pride and priority to secure these elections. And you have -- a final factor is you have -- I think in April 2014, you'll have about 425,000 security forces in country, the vast majority of them being ANSF, a small minority being ISAF, compared to about 250,000 that were in Afghanistan that were tasked with securing the 2009 elections. So you have a strength now to do this, as well as a focus and a level of preparation that you didn't have before. So going forward, I think -- I'd like to say that I think that strategic issue, the answer is likely to be yes.
And then the final issue -- and it's really one for that transition period of 2014 to 2015 -- is whether we can succeed in transitioning to a much smaller Western or coalition presence, U.S. presence and transition over to ANSF to really take on the sovereign responsibility for the country. And, again, it's early to see. I think there are a number of challenges. There are a number of risks to that. And those are ones that we're -- we're definitely focused on here in the department and elsewhere in the U.S. government.
So with that as a general orientation, I open it up to questions for us.
COLONEL STEVE WARREN: We'll start off with Bob Burns from Associated Press.
Q: Hello, thanks for doing this. Particularly thanks for doing it on the record. It's a good change from...
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Don't make me regret it, Bob. (Laughter.)
Q: On your point you made earlier about the improved or greater national allegiance of the ANSF, there's a section in the report that describes cease-fire deals that are being done on -- in some local areas between Afghan units and insurgent groups and other kinds of accommodations being made with the Taliban. You described -- the report describes this as a developing issue that requires monitoring. On the one hand, it says it's not a major problem, but it can have negative effects. It seems a bit of a wishy-washy approach to explaining what's going on there. Could you elaborate a bit more on -- is this a new development? And since March when this report cuts off, has it been happening more often, less often?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think it's not at all a new -- a new element. I mean, going back into Afghan history, there have always been, you know, vigorous fighting, then followed by peace arrangements, cease-fires, and then new -- hopefully new political understandings.
Even with ISAF forces, I think it's been actually more problematic at times, where we found out subsequently that some unit has cut some -- made some arrangement with local -- the local population, possibly including the Taliban. That's been problematic. We don't see that occurring as much today.
Look, the -- the Afghans are providing security for their own population. They need to get along with that population. They need to have an understanding with the population. They're not a foreign force. They're not a force liberating that population. They're protecting the population. So there needs to be understandings.
I think generally this is desirable. It depends on the specifics -- and I can't really get into those specifics now of particular cases, but I think on the whole, as we said in this, maybe it sounds wishy-washy, but as we said, it does deserve, you know, close attention, generally can be positive. If deals are cut for the wrong reasons, that could be negative.
And ultimately, stability and peace will be achieved in Afghanistan by these deals being cut, either from the center or, you know, in regions. So I don't really see this as a particularly problematic trend. And, frankly, it is a traditionally Afghanistan trend.
Q: Is it gaining momentum in more recent months?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I really can't tell you. I haven't -- I don't have the evidence of that. I mean, it's something that we're looking at and -- you know, the next time we're together, I'd be happy to follow up with you about that.
COL. WARREN: So we'll go to Tony next.
Q: A question on page two. You had this interesting sentence that beyond December '14, ANSF will still require substantial training, advising and assistance, including financial support to address ongoing shortcomings. It's never addressed again in the full report. What's the implication there for U.S. forces to -- the size of U.S. forces or the need for U.S. forces post-2014? As you know, there's been some debate about a zero option. This sort of knocks that -- knocks the legs out of that option, it seems, but I wanted to get your view.
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Okay, well, thanks for that question. Let me explain the information in there in that sentence and put it in perspective. As I mentioned very briefly, we've seen a really rapid, remarkable development of the Afghan national security forces. Initially, the focus was just simply trying to recruit and field a force of people with adequate literacy and training to do the job. We succeeded in that phase. Then the focus was improving the quality and the combat performance effectiveness of that force, and that's being proven this year.
The phase that we're really focused on now is the sustainability of the force. Will that force -- will there be some institutions, whether at the core level or the ministerial level, that makes sure that people get their paychecks, that -- you always the soldiers to get their paychecks on time -- to make sure that they're fed, to make sure that fuel contracts are developed. These are the kind of functional skills and capabilities that Afghans are still developing today.
And we envision that it will take a period of time before they can adequately fully have sovereign ownership of all those skill sets, including well beyond the 2014 date. That's why, as we've looked at a number of options that we've prepared in this building, in concert with our interagency partners for interagency consideration, these have taken into account the train, advise and assist functions, in addition to our own U.S. counterterrorism mission set going forward. But these would focus less on combat proficiency and really focus more on these functional skill developments at the -- at the core and then ministerial level. We envision that will take a period of time.
So you also asked about the zero option. In one of these cases have we developed an option that is zero. Now, if we don't get the permission of the Afghan government in the form of a bilateral security agreement, then we're not going to be able to continue this job of working with ANSF. And so then you end up with zero.
Q: Just -- to follow up, though, this does portend the use -- U.S. troops in some form, some form or number, staying beyond 2014 to help with these sometimes mundane, but vital functions?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: That's correct. And that is our intention.
Q: Thank you.
COL. WARREN: We'll go to Phil, and then in the back.
Q: Just a quick follow-up, before that, you said whether -- assessing whether the gains that have been made are sustainable, it doesn't just depend on whether there is a force, but it depends on the size or the structure of that force. Can you explain a bit about how the size and the structure, particularly the structure of that force, matters when assessing whether the gains of the war can be (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah. Now, when you say that force, you're referring to ISAF or U.S. forces?
Q: (OFF-MIC)
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, it will matter. But we're also looking at a moving target. The ANSF -- we're seeing for the first time their performance on the battlefield as the lead combat instrument, security instrument in the country. So our calculations on what will be required beyond 2014 will probably vary after the end of this fighting season than they -- compared to when we first thought about this issue a year ago or even before. So we're anticipating -- making anticipations on the requirements, on the needs of the Afghan national security forces, and these have changed over time, because you've been looking at a moving target. We have much more fidelity today than we had over a year ago, let's say.
As you know, the president has not made a decision on what that force will be. And the president's wanted to look -- wants to look at a number of factors that will take place this year currently and possibly going into the future and see how -- and particularly the key factor is the performance of the Afghan national security forces. So taking into account all of these factors, there will be a decision on what forces appropriate to the tasks at hand.
Q: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. My question is that things are not going very well in the region, especially in Afghanistan, according to Afghan people, because they have been suffering for the last 30-plus years civil wars, Taliban wars, Al Qaida wars, and so on. My question is that Afghanistan will be going elections next year, so will be India, or in India could be earlier, and also Pakistan -- now they had just elections and new prime minister.
My question is that, can you have stability and peace like they had in the '70s and a fruitful country of Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan? Because the Taliban is still in Pakistan. Now they are fighting in Syria and other countries. What that's saying is -- and they are waiting when the U.S. and NATO forces leave Afghanistan and they will focus their fighting in Afghanistan, because what they're saying is they have not learned anything but to kill people and fight.
My question is here, what role do you think Pakistan will play and what role India will play in the region, sir?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: I think both Pakistan and India will play and ought to play very important, significant roles going forward in Afghanistan. Those countries and other immediate and nearby neighbors of Afghanistan are affected by the security conditions in Afghanistan. Borders, as you know, are very porous in this part of the world. They're affected by it, and they in turn affect security and political developments inside Afghanistan.
This is a very interdependent region, if you will, from that point of view. And what you have today is a growing sense, as you indicated, of insecurity throughout the region, in central Asia, even north of there, Russia and other places in China, but most acutely in Pakistan and India.
There's a fear in India that there will be what is called as a surplus terrorism. After there is some stability in Afghanistan, where will these terrorists go? Will they target India?
They have the exact same fears in Pakistan. Pakistan is now facing a very vibrant insurgency in its country. They're about 150,000 Pakistani military in western Pakistan fighting this insurgency. They're concerned that if there is further instability in Afghanistan, this could heighten the insurgency, be motivational or provide some safe haven for insurgents to come over into Pakistan.
So everyone in the region has these concerns. And I think -- and this is really something where my diplomatic colleagues are taking the lead -- is to try to harmonize the policies of each of the countries in the region to try to achieve a common end purpose, a common situation of peace and stability in Afghanistan and, more broadly, throughout the region. And there are challenges, but generally I think it's going well.
Q: Just a quick follow, sir, quickly, recently there have been very high-level visits to India (inaudible) Secretary Hagel recently and then Secretary Kerry and now recently Vice President Biden. And they were all talking about the security and U.S.-India relations, military-to-military, and so forth, and also, of course, Afghanistan. What do you think now there is a firing going on, on the India-Pakistan border, heavy fighting in the region of Kashmir? What do you think will escalate? Or what U.S. -- been talking to India when they were visiting or they're -- are they talking about these problems on the border?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's really for the countries in the region to manage their own relationships. These are the countries that are most directly affected. And the situation -- we view the situation in Kashmir as a bilateral situation for India and Pakistan to sort out.
And regrettably, there has been violence in -- along the line of control in Kashmir for many years, for many decades now, and that's very, very regrettable. But, again, we believe -- you mentioned earlier that, with the election of President Nawaz Sharif, there have been overtures made by the Pakistanis to the Indians and vice versa to try to normalize the situation economically and reach some kind of political understanding. And I know we in the U.S. government fully support those efforts.
COL. WARREN: Blue tie, state your name and organization?
Q: Dion Nissenbaum with the Wall Street Journal. One of the weakest links in the effort has been corruption, as you know. And the report goes into a fair amount of detail about corruption at the regional level by a corrupt network running out of Kabul International Airport. I imagine Shafafiyat and those efforts are winding down, how concerned are you that as the ISAF efforts winds up, that corruption could overwhelm the efforts to reform the ANSF? And are you seeing it increase as ISAF winds up its efforts?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Corruption is a critical concern. It has been -- it remains one. And it probably will be a concern going forward. There is some -- I'm not trying to justify it, but there historically has been level of influence-peddling, what we would call corruption, in this country. There are certain socially accepted standards that differ, obviously, from our standards.
But then there's clearly abusive corruption, very corrosive, toxic corruption that's taking place. And it is a priority. What's very heartening to us is that this is a priority for the Afghan ministerial leadership that we deal with. Secretary Hagel's counterparts are the minister of defense and the minister of interior. And in their conversations and other DOD officials with these individuals, they've identified anti-corruption as a priority for them.
They've changed out leaders. B.K. Mohammadi, the minister of defense, has made a really deliberate effort after he took over to change out leaders, to improve not only performance and the quality of forces under new leadership, but to root out corruption, which does have many negative consequences, if you allow it to fester.
COL. WARREN: Let's go to Thom Shanker, and then we'll finish with Gordon Lubold.
Q: (OFF-MIC) on March 31st, which is the fighting season hadn't really gotten underway. All of us in this room understand the tyranny of deadlines, don't get me wrong. But if your deadline were today, are there any trends, especially among the security forces, that you would capture in this report in light of the current fighting season?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Yeah, I'd say -- I'd probably point to three trends, and I did allude to them. Number one, the security forces are out there doing the security job. This was kind of a question mark before this fighting season, because this is the first fighting season where the Afghan -- where the Afghan army and the police were actually in the lead. And they've acquitted themselves very, very well. As I mentioned, they've taken a lot of casualties. They've been tested by the insurgents, but they've done a good job standing up to those threats. So that's number one.
Number two -- and this is a challenge they're working through -- when they were partnered with American forces, they -- and ISAF forces -- they were partnered with the best military forces in the world. They were partnered with -- with units that had the best enabling support, whether it's mobility getting into a place, whether it's intelligence that gives you time-sensitive targeting on the threats, whether it's situational awareness, whether you know that there are other threats that could be emerging. And then after an engagement, how to get out of their mobility, to get out of there and medevac, getting people -- giving them that golden hour to get treatment. They're used to the state-of-the-art health care.
As we've pulled back and now Afghans are taking over not only lead for combat, they are now in the lead for getting their people around the country. They're in the lead for identifying -- you know, using their intelligence, analyzing their -- infusing and analyzing their intelligence, identifying targets, conducting the operations, designing the operations, and getting their people out of there.
So this has been a bit of an adjustment. I think generally it's been positive, but it's an adjustment away from U.S.-ISAF state-of-the-art standards in all these to something that's different in other cases. In many cases, they're finding local solutions that work just as well for their needs. They're finding local hospitals that they can take wounded soldiers to.
The third trend is also a bit of a challenge, but it's an anticipated and, frankly, a desirable challenge to have. It's the trend of the Afghans developing those functional capacities to provide for the logistical support of their troops, to provide for the human capital management, for managing the contracts and finances and budgeting and so forth. This is -- these are good problems to have.
Before, as I mentioned, we were concerned about fielding the force. Then we were concerned about the operational capacity and wherewithal of the force. Now we're concerned about these functional enabling attributes. This is a good problem. Again, as I said, our theme was we can really imagine having these challenges now. We thought we'd still be mired in some of those other challenges.
So going forward, I think the questions are, can the Afghan forces be able to sustain themselves at standards and with the kind of capacities that they can keep without being dependent on us?
COL. WARREN: So, last question from Gordon at Foreign Policy.
Q: Back to the 2014 question, the commitment of troops after 2014, as you know, there's a frustration that the administration hasn't articulated any number. And the zero option and all that aside, I'm curious -- you know, there's frustration from the Hill, from allies, from inside this building, why can't the administration say, "Here's our range," barring anything coming up, as you mentioned? Is there a point of diminishing returns in terms of holding out on this number and not just throwing it out there and saying, "This is what we're probably going to do at this point"? And also, are you confident that April will -- the elections will happen in April?
ACTING ASST. SEC. LAVOY: Well, it's hard to be confident about events that will happen months into the future. And I would just like to take your last question, make a point, and fully agree with the significance of that election. As you look forward, the -- another strategic risk, this -- this gentleman mentioned the neighborhood. I think that is a strategic risk. If the neighbors can't get along, that could undermine the security gains in Afghanistan.
The other strategic risk, if the political transition does not occur effectively, you could have a fragmentation of elite consensus in the country, political consensus, that could have reverberations in the military forces. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal military force. And so to some extent, like military forces in every country in the world, the cohesion of the force is largely dependent on the political cohesion of the society. And the election could open up schisms that would be problematic, if the -- if the political transition doesn't take place well.
So now only do -- are we very hopeful that the election will take place and doing everything we can, particularly Jarrett and my colleagues over at State Department, who have the lead in the U.S. government for supporting the Afghans in that, to support them in this election, but it does have a very strong impact on the security forces.
And then you asked the other question on our presence in -- decision-making about our presence to Afghanistan post-2014. It's a critical issue. It's something that, you know, we get asked about by countries, leaders of countries all around the world. The U.S. does have a position of leadership. It's had a position of leadership in Afghanistan. It does today. And it's likely to have that position of leadership in the future.
We want to make sure that the decisions that -- that are reached are sound and based on full information in a very dynamic environment and something that, you know, Americans can know are the right decisions to provide for that continuing security in the region so that our interests are protected, so that the terrorist threat to the United States, which has diminished significantly in the last decade, will continue to diminish and will not reoccur in the future.
COL. WARREN: Thank you guys very much.
Monday, July 1, 2013
JAMES DOBBINS HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE ON AFGHANISTAN IN NEW DELHI
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Press Conference in New Delhi
Press Conference
Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
New Delhi, India
June 27, 2013
Ambassador Dobbins: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here in New Delhi. I’ve been in the job I currently hold for a month now. I’ve been touring the region for the last week. I went to Doha with Secretary Kerry for discussions there, and then met with President Karzai in Kabul on Monday and with Prime Minister Nawaz and other Pakistani officials on Tuesday. I arrived here yesterday and met with the Foreign Secretary and others from the Foreign Ministry yesterday evening. I’ll meet with the Indian Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Ambassador [Lamba] who is an old friend from a decade ago after this meeting.
I think the last time I was in New Delhi was in a similar capacity. I was the American Special Envoy for Afghanistan also in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and represented the U.S. in the early diplomacy after 9/11 which led to the Bonn Conference and the establishment of an interim government in Afghanistan which ultimately led to the current constitution and current government in Afghanistan.
So I’ve come back at an interesting and pivotal time, a time when NATO and the United States are transitioning from a combat to an advisory and assistance role in Afghanistan, and maybe more importantly a time when Afghanistan will be going through its first peaceful democratic transition in its national history.
I’ve come to Delhi and hope to be able to come back regularly because India has an important stake in Afghanistan and it has important influence in Afghanistan, and it’s important that we understand Indian views and obviously that India understands our views and that we collaborate as closely as possible which I certainly did 10 years ago or 11 years ago when the Indian representative and I, Ambassador [Lamba] collaborated very closely, very effectively, in bringing about the emergence of an interim government in Afghanistan, and I anticipate that we’ll be able to continue to collaborate on a similar basis. So I’ll be glad to answer questions.
Press: What talks with the Indian [inaudible] the Special Envoy. What [were] talks?
Ambassador Dobbins: The talks pretty much covered all aspects of our relations with Afghanistan and also to some degree with Pakistan where I had just been, but the focus was on Afghanistan.
The issue that’s probably most topical because it’s been in the news lately is the efforts to begin a peace process and I would say that was probably the single, the topic that occupied the most time. But we also talked about other issues including the upcoming Afghan elections and the political transition. And I think while a lot of us concentrate on our attention on both the possible peace process on the one hand and the military situation and the reduction in NATO and American forces, those are not the most important things that are going on. The most important things that are going on, the thing that will shape Afghanistan’s future more than anything else is the political transition that will take place next year.
Press: What topics?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think we talked about the election process, about the international [inaudible], that it’s a free and fair process, and how we can encourage the Afghan political elites to coalesce around candidates who have broad non-sectarian or cross-sectarian appeal. Candidates who don’t just represent one sectarian community but bring together coalitions that will result in an administration that has support and appeal in Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek communities.
On the reconciliation there were a lot of questions about where we stand in terms of the possibilities of opening a Taliban office in Doha for the purpose of negotiating and I explained where that process stood.
Press: Could you summarize what the Indian view was to your [Doha] peace process and how you responded to what has widely been considered [inaudible] of great [inaudible]?
Ambassador Dobbins: They questioned me closely about what the prospects were, what the exact status was, and I hope that they were somewhat reassured as a result. They weren’t telling me they were opposed, they weren’t telling me that this was something we should stay away from, but they clearly had anxieties, anxieties that we all have. Nobody knows how this is going to progress and it’s certainly not a sure thing that it will result in a diminished violence and a successful evolution toward peace. But I didn’t get a sense that they thought it wasn’t worth trying.
I don’t really want to speak for the Indian side, however. I think they’re perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. For our standpoint we’re going into this process with open eyes and without naïve or excessive expectations of rapid progress or even a certainty that there will be any progress at all. Indeed, there’s no certainty that the process will even start since we’re still waiting for responses from the Taliban as to whether they’re prepared to operate under the conditions that the government of Qatar has set, whether they’re prepared to meet with us, and whether they’re prepared to meet with representatives of the Afghan High Peace Council. We haven’t yet received definitive responses on those questions.
Press: After the change of government in Islamabad, what is your assessment for improvement of India-Pakistan ties, and how important do you see that in terms of [Afghanistan’s situation] post 2014?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think that any improvement in India-Pakistan ties will almost automatically improve Afghanistan’s situation. I’ve met twice now in little more than two weeks with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The first time shortly before he became Prime Minister and then again the day before yesterday. My sense is that an improvement in relations with India is fairly high on his list of priorities. He’s got an overwhelming set of problems facing him, most immediately economic pressures, also significant domestic violence that he need to cope with.
But on the external front, and I think he understands that internal and external affairs are related, my sense is that improving relations with India seems to be his top priority.
Press: [What is the] concern [in] India? [Inaudible] talks with Taliban? Without [inaudible] of terrorists, do you believe that an improvement in Indo relations with Pakistan [or] Taliban [will pass]?
Ambassador Dobbins: We certainly agree that there’s no prospect for improvement in relations with the Taliban or any agreement with the Taliban unless the issue of terrorism is directly addressed. We set as a precondition for beginning talks with the Taliban that they make a statement that at least began to distance themselves from international terrorism and they did so. They made a statement a week ago Tuesday in which they said they opposed the use of Afghan territory for attacks on anybody else. But that’s I think from our standpoint sufficient to begin talking to them, but it’s not going to be sufficient as the basis for any agreement.
We’ve made clear, Secretary Kerry made clear when he was here that any agreement would need to include a cessation of hostilities, a respect for the Afghan constitution, and a severing of all ties with al-Qaida and similar terrorist organizations.
I would stress that the negotiations toward this objective will principally be negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Not between the United States and the Taliban. But we hope that our dialogue with them, if it begins, can contribute to that and we’ll be focused particularly on the topic that you raised which is severing their ties with al-Qaida. It will be one of the first issues we will raise is how do they intend to do that. Not just what they intend to say about it but how they actually intend to go about severing those ties.
Press: What exactly is the U.S. doing to get President Karzai on board with the peace process with the Taliban? [Inaudible] and I understand that President Karzai isn’t very happy about that. I was wondering [inaudible].
Ambassador Dobbins: Well, President Karzai wasn’t happy about it, quite aside from that we weren’t happy about it either. There’s I think an impression that we intervened with the Qataris only because President Karzai complained. We intervened with the Qataris well before President Karzai complained because the self-presentation of that office was inconsistent with the assurance that the Qataris had given us and that we had given President Karzai.
The government of Qatar responded very quickly. They took down the sign that said Islamic Emirates. They took down the flag. And they issued a public statement that this was not the Office of the Islamic Emirate, this was the political office of the Taliban.
So in terms of the specific things that Karzai was concerned about, I think those issues have been resolved. When I talked to President Karzai on Monday, he was perfectly content to move forward with this if the Taliban are prepared to do so on the basis that we had previously agreed
Press: Are you going back to Qatar?
Ambassador Dobbins: No. We’re still waiting to hear from the Taliban whether they’re willing to meet. I think they’re still debating among themselves as the result of the events of last Tuesday whether they want to go forward or not. I don’t know.
From here I’m going back to Washington via Europe.
Press: On the Taliban. You mentioned a statement by them a week ago saying the use of Afghan territory [inaudible]. And yet we saw a couple of days ago an attack on central Kabul targeting the Presidential Palace. How do you manage the process if you see in the coming months the attacks continuing in Afghanistan? What would your [inaudible] to do with that?
Ambassador Dobbins: You don’t hold peace talks after the war, you hold peace talks during wars. The Taliban haven’t asked us to stop fighting and we don’t expect them to stop fighting just because they’re talking. The objective of the talks obviously is a diminution of violence and ultimately an enduring peace, but we’re not naïve enough to think that’s going to come quickly and it’s certainly not a precondition for just talking.
Frankly, I anticipate that the Taliban will continue to try to negotiate from a position of strength. They’ll continue to mount attacks as will we and as will the Afghan government. The attacks that the Taliban have mounted over the past several months have been fairly severe and they’ve almost all failed. The Afghan armed forces are now taking the lead in combat operations. We’re no longer leading in combat. They are increasingly reliant on their own resources. And they’re performing well.
But I don’t think that’s going to lead to an immediate diminution in violence. I think the Taliban probably want to continue to put pressure on. They want to continue to make it look like the United States is retreating as a result of that pressure rather than as a result of its success in building a viable Afghan capacity for self-defense. And NATO, the United States, and in particular the Afghan Security Forces are going to continue not just to defend themselves, but to mount offensive operations against the Taliban, and not only seek to hold territory but to reclaim territory.
So I don’t anticipate that the beginning of negotiations will end the war. I do hope that negotiations will ultimately contribute to an end to the war. But that’s by no means certain. It’s simply something that’s worth trying.
Press Conference in New Delhi
Press Conference
Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
New Delhi, India
June 27, 2013
Ambassador Dobbins: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here in New Delhi. I’ve been in the job I currently hold for a month now. I’ve been touring the region for the last week. I went to Doha with Secretary Kerry for discussions there, and then met with President Karzai in Kabul on Monday and with Prime Minister Nawaz and other Pakistani officials on Tuesday. I arrived here yesterday and met with the Foreign Secretary and others from the Foreign Ministry yesterday evening. I’ll meet with the Indian Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Ambassador [Lamba] who is an old friend from a decade ago after this meeting.
I think the last time I was in New Delhi was in a similar capacity. I was the American Special Envoy for Afghanistan also in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and represented the U.S. in the early diplomacy after 9/11 which led to the Bonn Conference and the establishment of an interim government in Afghanistan which ultimately led to the current constitution and current government in Afghanistan.
So I’ve come back at an interesting and pivotal time, a time when NATO and the United States are transitioning from a combat to an advisory and assistance role in Afghanistan, and maybe more importantly a time when Afghanistan will be going through its first peaceful democratic transition in its national history.
I’ve come to Delhi and hope to be able to come back regularly because India has an important stake in Afghanistan and it has important influence in Afghanistan, and it’s important that we understand Indian views and obviously that India understands our views and that we collaborate as closely as possible which I certainly did 10 years ago or 11 years ago when the Indian representative and I, Ambassador [Lamba] collaborated very closely, very effectively, in bringing about the emergence of an interim government in Afghanistan, and I anticipate that we’ll be able to continue to collaborate on a similar basis. So I’ll be glad to answer questions.
Press: What talks with the Indian [inaudible] the Special Envoy. What [were] talks?
Ambassador Dobbins: The talks pretty much covered all aspects of our relations with Afghanistan and also to some degree with Pakistan where I had just been, but the focus was on Afghanistan.
The issue that’s probably most topical because it’s been in the news lately is the efforts to begin a peace process and I would say that was probably the single, the topic that occupied the most time. But we also talked about other issues including the upcoming Afghan elections and the political transition. And I think while a lot of us concentrate on our attention on both the possible peace process on the one hand and the military situation and the reduction in NATO and American forces, those are not the most important things that are going on. The most important things that are going on, the thing that will shape Afghanistan’s future more than anything else is the political transition that will take place next year.
Press: What topics?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think we talked about the election process, about the international [inaudible], that it’s a free and fair process, and how we can encourage the Afghan political elites to coalesce around candidates who have broad non-sectarian or cross-sectarian appeal. Candidates who don’t just represent one sectarian community but bring together coalitions that will result in an administration that has support and appeal in Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek communities.
On the reconciliation there were a lot of questions about where we stand in terms of the possibilities of opening a Taliban office in Doha for the purpose of negotiating and I explained where that process stood.
Press: Could you summarize what the Indian view was to your [Doha] peace process and how you responded to what has widely been considered [inaudible] of great [inaudible]?
Ambassador Dobbins: They questioned me closely about what the prospects were, what the exact status was, and I hope that they were somewhat reassured as a result. They weren’t telling me they were opposed, they weren’t telling me that this was something we should stay away from, but they clearly had anxieties, anxieties that we all have. Nobody knows how this is going to progress and it’s certainly not a sure thing that it will result in a diminished violence and a successful evolution toward peace. But I didn’t get a sense that they thought it wasn’t worth trying.
I don’t really want to speak for the Indian side, however. I think they’re perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. For our standpoint we’re going into this process with open eyes and without naïve or excessive expectations of rapid progress or even a certainty that there will be any progress at all. Indeed, there’s no certainty that the process will even start since we’re still waiting for responses from the Taliban as to whether they’re prepared to operate under the conditions that the government of Qatar has set, whether they’re prepared to meet with us, and whether they’re prepared to meet with representatives of the Afghan High Peace Council. We haven’t yet received definitive responses on those questions.
Press: After the change of government in Islamabad, what is your assessment for improvement of India-Pakistan ties, and how important do you see that in terms of [Afghanistan’s situation] post 2014?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think that any improvement in India-Pakistan ties will almost automatically improve Afghanistan’s situation. I’ve met twice now in little more than two weeks with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The first time shortly before he became Prime Minister and then again the day before yesterday. My sense is that an improvement in relations with India is fairly high on his list of priorities. He’s got an overwhelming set of problems facing him, most immediately economic pressures, also significant domestic violence that he need to cope with.
But on the external front, and I think he understands that internal and external affairs are related, my sense is that improving relations with India seems to be his top priority.
Press: [What is the] concern [in] India? [Inaudible] talks with Taliban? Without [inaudible] of terrorists, do you believe that an improvement in Indo relations with Pakistan [or] Taliban [will pass]?
Ambassador Dobbins: We certainly agree that there’s no prospect for improvement in relations with the Taliban or any agreement with the Taliban unless the issue of terrorism is directly addressed. We set as a precondition for beginning talks with the Taliban that they make a statement that at least began to distance themselves from international terrorism and they did so. They made a statement a week ago Tuesday in which they said they opposed the use of Afghan territory for attacks on anybody else. But that’s I think from our standpoint sufficient to begin talking to them, but it’s not going to be sufficient as the basis for any agreement.
We’ve made clear, Secretary Kerry made clear when he was here that any agreement would need to include a cessation of hostilities, a respect for the Afghan constitution, and a severing of all ties with al-Qaida and similar terrorist organizations.
I would stress that the negotiations toward this objective will principally be negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Not between the United States and the Taliban. But we hope that our dialogue with them, if it begins, can contribute to that and we’ll be focused particularly on the topic that you raised which is severing their ties with al-Qaida. It will be one of the first issues we will raise is how do they intend to do that. Not just what they intend to say about it but how they actually intend to go about severing those ties.
Press: What exactly is the U.S. doing to get President Karzai on board with the peace process with the Taliban? [Inaudible] and I understand that President Karzai isn’t very happy about that. I was wondering [inaudible].
Ambassador Dobbins: Well, President Karzai wasn’t happy about it, quite aside from that we weren’t happy about it either. There’s I think an impression that we intervened with the Qataris only because President Karzai complained. We intervened with the Qataris well before President Karzai complained because the self-presentation of that office was inconsistent with the assurance that the Qataris had given us and that we had given President Karzai.
The government of Qatar responded very quickly. They took down the sign that said Islamic Emirates. They took down the flag. And they issued a public statement that this was not the Office of the Islamic Emirate, this was the political office of the Taliban.
So in terms of the specific things that Karzai was concerned about, I think those issues have been resolved. When I talked to President Karzai on Monday, he was perfectly content to move forward with this if the Taliban are prepared to do so on the basis that we had previously agreed
Press: Are you going back to Qatar?
Ambassador Dobbins: No. We’re still waiting to hear from the Taliban whether they’re willing to meet. I think they’re still debating among themselves as the result of the events of last Tuesday whether they want to go forward or not. I don’t know.
From here I’m going back to Washington via Europe.
Press: On the Taliban. You mentioned a statement by them a week ago saying the use of Afghan territory [inaudible]. And yet we saw a couple of days ago an attack on central Kabul targeting the Presidential Palace. How do you manage the process if you see in the coming months the attacks continuing in Afghanistan? What would your [inaudible] to do with that?
Ambassador Dobbins: You don’t hold peace talks after the war, you hold peace talks during wars. The Taliban haven’t asked us to stop fighting and we don’t expect them to stop fighting just because they’re talking. The objective of the talks obviously is a diminution of violence and ultimately an enduring peace, but we’re not naïve enough to think that’s going to come quickly and it’s certainly not a precondition for just talking.
Frankly, I anticipate that the Taliban will continue to try to negotiate from a position of strength. They’ll continue to mount attacks as will we and as will the Afghan government. The attacks that the Taliban have mounted over the past several months have been fairly severe and they’ve almost all failed. The Afghan armed forces are now taking the lead in combat operations. We’re no longer leading in combat. They are increasingly reliant on their own resources. And they’re performing well.
But I don’t think that’s going to lead to an immediate diminution in violence. I think the Taliban probably want to continue to put pressure on. They want to continue to make it look like the United States is retreating as a result of that pressure rather than as a result of its success in building a viable Afghan capacity for self-defense. And NATO, the United States, and in particular the Afghan Security Forces are going to continue not just to defend themselves, but to mount offensive operations against the Taliban, and not only seek to hold territory but to reclaim territory.
So I don’t anticipate that the beginning of negotiations will end the war. I do hope that negotiations will ultimately contribute to an end to the war. But that’s by no means certain. It’s simply something that’s worth trying.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
FORMER MARINE DESCRIBES LOSS OF SONES ON 9/11
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Former Marine, Fire Captain Describes Loss of Sons on 9/11
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
BROOKLYN, N.Y., May 21, 2013 - Former U.S. Marine Corps sergeant and retired New York City fire captain John Vigiano is all too familiar with what he calls bad days.
Speaking after the Armed Forces Wounded Warrior Mural Dedication Ceremony at the William McKinley Intermediate School here, the soft-spoken, silver-haired veterans' advocate discussed his experiences as military member, first responder and grieving father.
Having spent nearly four decades as a firefighter in Brooklyn, he seldom considered his life-saving responsibilities as work so much as a passion.
"Thirty-six years ... I think I went to work five days, maybe six," Vigiano said. "The rest of it was just great."
Other days, he remembered, were not so great.
"Those were days of pretty significant losses," Vigiano said. "When a fireman dies in your hands, you never forget that. It's not a good day. The first time you find someone burned to death, it's not a good day."
But nothing, he said, could ever prepare him for the events of Sept. 11, 2001 –- the morning that both of his sons, John Jr. and Joe, perished in the line of duty while saving lives as the World Trade Center collapsed.
"9/11 will take me to the grave; both my sons were killed that day," he said, his head lowered. "You go to bed saying, 'I hope I don't dream about it again, but you do.'"
John Jr. followed in his father's footsteps as a New York City firefighter, while his younger brother, Joe, served as a detective in the New York Police Department. That particular morning, Vigiano was home watching the tragedy unfold with the rest of the world.
"The police department took my wife and me down to headquarters that afternoon and I stayed there until they closed the site," Vigiano said. "Everyday from 6:30 in the morning to midnight, I'd walk the pile."
At his wife's request, he did not dig.
"She said, 'if anything happens to you, I have nobody,'" he recalled. "So I just stood in the back and when a body was recovered, I'd go down and say a prayer and go back."
His voice trembling, Vigiano said rescue teams found Joe's remains, but they never found John Jr.
The elder Vigiano said his young granddaughter grew to comprehend that the spirit of her father lives on.
"That's taken a lot to try and explain to her that his soul is still with us – that the body doesn't mean anything," Vigiano said.
Still, John and his wife of 50 years, Jan, pray for the day they find the bit of DNA that can finally bring them some closure.
"My wife and I bond together and we had 34 and 36 great years," Vigiano said of his sons' respective lives and, ironically, John Jr's badge number, 3436.
"The last words that I spoke to my sons: 'I love you' and they said 'I love you. It don't get better than that."
Former Marine, Fire Captain Describes Loss of Sons on 9/11
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
BROOKLYN, N.Y., May 21, 2013 - Former U.S. Marine Corps sergeant and retired New York City fire captain John Vigiano is all too familiar with what he calls bad days.
Speaking after the Armed Forces Wounded Warrior Mural Dedication Ceremony at the William McKinley Intermediate School here, the soft-spoken, silver-haired veterans' advocate discussed his experiences as military member, first responder and grieving father.
Having spent nearly four decades as a firefighter in Brooklyn, he seldom considered his life-saving responsibilities as work so much as a passion.
"Thirty-six years ... I think I went to work five days, maybe six," Vigiano said. "The rest of it was just great."
Other days, he remembered, were not so great.
"Those were days of pretty significant losses," Vigiano said. "When a fireman dies in your hands, you never forget that. It's not a good day. The first time you find someone burned to death, it's not a good day."
But nothing, he said, could ever prepare him for the events of Sept. 11, 2001 –- the morning that both of his sons, John Jr. and Joe, perished in the line of duty while saving lives as the World Trade Center collapsed.
"9/11 will take me to the grave; both my sons were killed that day," he said, his head lowered. "You go to bed saying, 'I hope I don't dream about it again, but you do.'"
John Jr. followed in his father's footsteps as a New York City firefighter, while his younger brother, Joe, served as a detective in the New York Police Department. That particular morning, Vigiano was home watching the tragedy unfold with the rest of the world.
"The police department took my wife and me down to headquarters that afternoon and I stayed there until they closed the site," Vigiano said. "Everyday from 6:30 in the morning to midnight, I'd walk the pile."
At his wife's request, he did not dig.
"She said, 'if anything happens to you, I have nobody,'" he recalled. "So I just stood in the back and when a body was recovered, I'd go down and say a prayer and go back."
His voice trembling, Vigiano said rescue teams found Joe's remains, but they never found John Jr.
The elder Vigiano said his young granddaughter grew to comprehend that the spirit of her father lives on.
"That's taken a lot to try and explain to her that his soul is still with us – that the body doesn't mean anything," Vigiano said.
Still, John and his wife of 50 years, Jan, pray for the day they find the bit of DNA that can finally bring them some closure.
"My wife and I bond together and we had 34 and 36 great years," Vigiano said of his sons' respective lives and, ironically, John Jr's badge number, 3436.
"The last words that I spoke to my sons: 'I love you' and they said 'I love you. It don't get better than that."
Sunday, April 7, 2013
REMEMBERING 9/11 AND THE USS ARLINGTON:
FROM: U.S. NAVY
 |
| USS Arlington (LPD 24) is underway for sea trials. |
 |
| Arlington, Virginia (Sept. 11, 2001) -- Smoke pours from the southwest corner of the Pentagon after a hijacked commercial airliner crashed into the building. U.S. Navy Photo by Journalist 1st Class Mark D. Faram (RELEASED) |
 |
| NORFOLK (March 22, 2013) First responders from Arlington County, Va., and the Pentagon salute as the amphibious transport dock Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Arlington (LPD 24) arrives to its homeport at Naval Station Norfolk. Arlington is the eighth San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock and the third U.S. Navy ship named for Arlington County, Va., witse American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, killing nearly 200 people. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Mollly Greendeer/Released) |
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE'S RENARKS AT APCAC U.S.-ASIA BUSINESS SUMMIT
 |
| After The Tsunami. Credit: U.S. Navy. |
The APCAC U.S.-Asia Business Summit
Remarks
Thomas Nides
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources
Tokyo, Japan
March 1, 2012
Good morning everyone – what a pleasure to be among so many friends and distinguished colleagues today.
Now, some of you might have heard me say before that I wear two hats. I’m here as a diplomat and as a recovering businessman. I am also fast becoming an expert Japan traveler. This is my third trip to Tokyo in the last year, and I am thrilled to be back. I'd like to thank the ACCJ President Michael Alfant, the ACCJ Board of Governors, and the entire APCAC Board for inviting me to speak to you.
We are meeting just days before the one-year anniversary of the terrible earthquake and tsunami that forever changed the lives of millions of people. Japan’s recovery over the last year is an inspiration to the world. What could have been a crippling disaster instead became a remarkable testament to the spirit and resilience of the Japanese people.
The world pulled together to support Japan in those days and months after March 11. Many of you contributed -- American corporations donated nearly $300 million for relief and recovery efforts. American and Japanese rescue and relief forces worked side-by-side, starting within hours of the tsunami.
Of course, Japan has done the same for us. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Japanese people were among the first to respond. In the terrible days following 9/11, Japanese volunteers worked at Ground Zero day-in and day-out. When it matters most, our countries step up for each other. That’s what friends do for each other.
Now, last week, Secretary Clinton hosted the first-ever Global Business Conference at the State Department in Washington. We brought together senior U.S. officials with more than 160 business leaders from over 120 countries. My friend and yours Charles Lake was one of the participants, and I’m glad that he’s here today as well.
The Global Business Conference had one goal: to figure out how the United States can make it easier for companies to do business internationally and create American jobs. Today we want to continue that discussion with you. I am joined by a panel of my colleagues -- our chief diplomats from all across the Asia-Pacific. They made the trip because they know how important economics is to our relationship with Asia, and how important the economic relationship between Asia and the United States is to the world.
So as we begin this discussion, I’d like to make four key points. First, how the United States is sharpening our focus on economics as a foreign policy tool. Second, how business and economics are particularly important to our foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Third, how the United States is doing a great deal to deepen our economic cooperation with the region. And finally, how we can and must do more, and how we need businesses to be part of that effort.
So let’s take these points one by one. First, our focus on business and economics as a tool for diplomacy – a policy we call economic statecraft. America's global leadership and our economic strength are fundamentally a package deal. We must do more to build up both.
We live in an era when the size of a country’s economy is every bit as important to exercising global leadership as the size of its military. Our corporations often reach more people in foreign countries than our embassies. Meanwhile, the American people are hungry for jobs that depend on finding new customers and opening new markets beyond our borders.
So we have made economic statecraft a priority for every one of our missions around the globe. And I’ll tell you, we will use every tool we have – including diplomacy – to promote global prosperity and create American jobs.
Which leads me to my second point: economic statecraft is particularly important in here Asia. That is one reason why, as you can see, we have such a strong showing on this panel.
Many Asian countries have long recognized the links between economics and foreign policy. In many ways, the business of Asia is business. Asian economies and populations are growing rapidly. I don’t need to tell you that much of future global economic growth will be centered in the Asia-Pacific. So it is imperative that we do this right. The decisions Asia’s emerging economies make together with the United States will help govern a rules-based system that will guide us through the 21st century. If we get the rules right, all of our countries will prosper together.
Economics is at the heart of America’s strategy in Asia. We are committed to exercising our role as a resident Pacific power—not just militarily and diplomatically but economically.
No one knows this better than the Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of Commerce. You have helped tend American business in Asia for more than 40 years. And your work has paid off. American Chambers of Commerce in Asia today oversee more than $400 billion dollars in trade volume and more than $200 billion in foreign direct investment. And yet, we can and we should be trading more.
The futures of the United States and Asia are linked. We are proud of the role the United States has played in helping fuel Asia's growing prosperity. In 2011, the United States exported nearly $900 billion in goods to APEC countries. That’s more exports than we sent to any other group of regional economies.
But there is no guarantee that the future will continue to be marked by success and growth. Our relationships need constant tending.
So, the third area I want to discuss is how we are enhancing our economic cooperation with the region. We have made some key gains, and we are committed to doing even more to get this right. Last year the President signed the landmark Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This deal will eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of American exports to the Republic of Korea. It will add more than $10 billion to the U.S. economy and grow Korea’s economy by 6 percent.
We want to bring these sorts of benefits to the broader region as well. So, we are working with our partners to build a high quality Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Done right, the TPP could set the stage for decades of higher living standards and deeper friendships across the region. That’s the world we want. And that’s the world I think you want too.
As we build this future, we should be clear. We are not just fighting for American businesses – although that is certainly a priority. America’s economic renewal depends on the strength of the global economy. And the global economy depends on the strength of the American economy. And both—let me add—depend on a strong, vibrant Japanese economy and a full recovery. So, we are striving to build a global, rules-based system in which all businesses stand a chance to succeed. Secretary Clinton laid out our vision at the APEC meetings in Washington almost a year ago. Economic competition should be open, free, transparent, and fair.
What do we mean by open? We mean a system where any person, in any part of the world, can access markets. If you have a good idea for a new product or service, nothing should prevent you from sharing it with the world.
What do we mean by free? We mean that every company can move their goods, money, and ideas around the globe without facing unnecessary roadblocks.
By transparent, we mean that regulations are developed in the open, with everyone’s input, and everyone knows what the rules are.
And, by fair, we mean that those rules apply equally to everyone. Fairness makes sure that people are willing to compete in the first place.
These four simple words cover an incredibly complex economic agenda. And in some of these areas, we face great challenges. For example, we must do a better job of protecting intellectual property. We can disagree about how to best enforce intellectual property laws, but we cannot afford to ignore them. Our 21st century economies rely on innovation and invention to drive economic growth and job creation. We must do all we can to protect that.
So, to my last point: we can and must do much more in the coming years to advance this economic statecraft agenda, and we need the business community to be our full partner. We need to sit down together, in forums like this one and the State Department Global Business Conference, or at gatherings like APEC. Building sustainable global growth and creating jobs at home is a joint venture. The private sector innovates and allocates capital, and the government opens doors to new markets and ensures that the system is fair. Given the economic hardship Americans and our international friends are suffering today, we must bring the partnership between business and government to the next level.
We are relying on you to think big, to generate new ideas, to open doors with jobs and capital. And the government will be right beside you – knocking down barriers, connecting partners, protecting everyone’s interests. Together, we can build a system of healthy economic competition that will be sustainable and profitable for many years to come.
I hope that we come away from these next two days with a newfound sense of purpose and possibility. Starting now, we should all be asking: What can the government and the State Department do to improve opportunities for business in the Asia-Pacific region? How can we do better? How can businesses support our national interests in tying the United States and Asia closer together?
If we are successful in finding more ways to work together to build an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system, the future of U.S.-Asia cooperation is unlimited. The impact on our global economic output will be enormous. And the benefit to people’s lives and opportunities will see no limits.
Thank you.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA ADRESSES STEPS TO END THE AL-QAEDA THREAT
 |
| Photo Credit: U.S. Department Of Defense. |
Panetta Details Steps Needed to End Al-Qaeda Threat
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2012 - For the United States and its allies, ending the al-Qaida threat calls for a modified military footprint, close work with partners, and continued U.S. involvement in regions of the world where violent extremism has flourished, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said tonight.
Addressing a large audience here at the Center for a New American Security, the secretary discussed significant national security challenges and opportunities ahead.
He also outlined priorities that characterize the approaching end of the longest period of sustained armed conflict in the nation's history.
The priorities, Panetta said, are fighting the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, ending the war in Afghanistan, implementing the new defense strategy, meeting fiscal responsibilities, countering nuclear proliferation, improving cybersecurity, achieving greater energy security, implementing the Asia-Pacific rebalance, and taking care of service members, veterans and military families.
"But tonight I wanted to focus on the goal that still remains at the top of the priority list, as it must. That goal that the president made very clear -- that we have a responsibility to disrupt, degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat those who attacked America on 9/11 -- al-Qaida," the secretary said.
" ... To protect Americans at home and overseas," he added, "we need to continue to pursue al-Qaida wherever they go, whatever form they take, wherever they seek to hide. We must be constantly vigilant, we must be constantly determined to pursue this enemy."
What will it take, he asked, to achieve the end of al-Qaida?
The essential first step is to finish the job that the United States and its coalition partners began in Afghanistan, he said, "and we are on track to do that."
As the United States and its NATO partners agreed at the 2010 summit in Lisbon, Panetta said, Afghans must be responsible for their own security by the end of 2014.
This transition will require continued commitment by the international community and the United States to help Afghan forces achieve this goal, he added.
"We have come too far. We have invested too much blood and treasure not to finish the job," the secretary said. "There are no shortcuts, nor can we afford to turn away from this effort when we are so close to achieving success and preventing al-Qaida from ever returning to this historic epicenter for violent extremism."
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, prolonged military and intelligence operations have significantly weakened al-Qaida, Panetta said.
The terrorist group's most effective leaders are gone, its command and control has been degraded and its safe haven is shrinking, he added, but al-Qaida remains.
"We have slowed the primary cancer but we know that the cancer has also metastasized to other parts of the global body," the secretary said. Two examples of that spreading al-Qaida presence are Yemen and Somalia.
In Yemen, for example, the capabilities of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, are growing. This group has targeted the United States for attack and sowed violence and chaos in Yemen itself, Panetta said.
"We have struck back in an effort to disrupt and dismantle this group through a very close partnership with the government of Yemen ... and the Yemenese themselves," he added.
In Somalia, against the militant group al-Shaabab, progress also has been made, the secretary said, "in large part because of an effective partnership between the United States and the African Union Mission in Somalia."
But the challenge is far from over, Panetta said.
"President [Barack] Obama has made clear, we will fight not just through military means but by harnessing every element of American power -- military, intelligence, diplomatic, law enforcement, financial, economic and above all the power of our values as Americans," the secretary said.
The second step in achieving the end of al-Qaida, Panetta said, involves maintaining pressure on al-Qaida in Pakistan, on AQAP in Yemen, and on al-Qaida-associated forces in Somalia.
That means degrading the terrorists' senior leadership, dismantling their organizational capabilities, remaining vigilant to ensure the threat does not reconstitute, and working to build the capacity of U.S. partners, including Pakistan, to confront these shared threats, he added.
"Despite challenges in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan," the secretary said, "one area in which our national interests continue to align is defeating the terrorists on Pakistan soil that threaten both of us. We remain committed to pursuing defense cooperation based on these shared interests."
A third step is to prevent the emergence of new safe havens for al-Qaida elsewhere in the world that the group could use to attack the United States or its interests, he said.
"The last decade of war has shown that coordinated efforts to share intelligence, to conduct operations with partners, are critical to making sure that al-Qaida has no place to hide," Panetta told the audience.
"We will expand these efforts, including through support and partnership with governments in transition in the Middle East and North Africa," he added.
"This campaign against al-Qaida will largely take place outside declared combat zones, using a small-footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign special operations forces, and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combating terrorism on their own," the secretary said.
DOD will work whenever possible with local partners, he added, supporting them with intelligence and resources they need to deter common threats.
In Mali for example, Panetta said, "we are working with our partners in Western Africa who are committed to countering the emerging threat to regional stability posed by AQIM."
A fourth step needed to bring an end to al-Qaida involves investing in the future, he added, in new military and intelligence capabilities and security partnerships.
"Our new defense strategy makes clear -- the military must retain and even build new counterterrorism capabilities for the future," Panetta said.
As the size of the military shrinks, for example, special operations will continue to ramp up, growing from 37,000 members on 9/11 to 64,000 today and 72,000 by 2017, the secretary noted.
"We are expanding our fleet of Predator and Reaper [unmanned aerial vehicles] over what we have today. These enhanced capabilities will enable us to be more flexible and agile against a threat that has grown more diffuse," Panetta said.
"We are also continuing to invest in building partner capacity, including through Section 1206 authority to train and equip foreign military forces. Our new Global Security Contingency Fund has been very helpful in placing new emphasis on cultivating regional expertise in the ranks," the secretary added.
A final point that too often takes a backseat to operations against al-Qaida, Panetta said, is how to prevent extremist ideologies from attracting new recruits.
"Over the past decade we have successfully directed our military and intelligence capabilities at fighting terrorism," he added. "And yet we are still struggling to develop an effective approach to address the factors that attract young men and women to extreme ideologies, and to ensure that governments and societies have the capacity and the will to counter and reject violent extremism."
To truly end the threat from al-Qaida, the secretary said, "military force aimed at killing our enemy alone will never be enough. The United States must stay involved and invested through diplomacy, through development, through education, through trade in those regions of the world where violent extremism has flourished."
This means continued engagement in Pakistan, he added, and following through on U.S. commitments to Afghanistan's long-term stability.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has outlined a comprehensive strategy for North and West Africa that combines security assistance and economic development, strengthens democratic institutions and advances political reforms, Panetta said.
" ... We will be vigilant and we will posture our military and intelligence forces to prevent and if necessary respond to threats of violence against our interests throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including threats against our embassies and consulates, and our diplomats themselves," the secretary said.
"But to truly protect America, we must sustain and in some areas deepen our engagement in the world –- our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development efforts are key to doing that," he added.
Pursuing an isolationist path, the secretary said, "would make all of us less safe in the long-term."
"This is not a time for retrenchment. This is not a time for isolation. It is a time for renewed engagement and partnership in the world," Panetta said.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND THE 9/11 AND WIKILEAKS CASES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
110525-N-PS473-037 NEW YORK (May 25, 2011) The amphibious transport dock ship USS New York (LPD 21) transits the Hudson River during Fleet Week 2011 parade of ships. New York has 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center towers forged into her bow and is participating in the 24th annual Fleet Week New York. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Eric S. Garst/Released)
Classified Information Plays Central Role in Both 9/11, WikiLeaks Cases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
FORT MEADE, Md., Oct. 18, 2012 - Pretrial hearings for two major court cases – one involving the alleged perpetrators behind the 9/11 terror attacks and the other involving the soldier charged with the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history – are converging this week as attorneys operating in two very different legal systems focus on the issue of classified information in the courtroom.
The pre-trial hearing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who has confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks "from A to Z," and four others who allegedly trained, financed or arranged transportation for the 19 hijackers entered its fourth day today at Naval Air Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Mohammed's codefendants in the case are his nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, charged with selecting and training some of the hijackers; and Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, accused with helping finance the attacks.
Meanwhile, here at Fort Meade, the second day of pre-trial hearings continued for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. He is an Army intelligence specialist accused of downloading and transmitting classified information to the whistle-blowing group WikiLeaks while he was deployed to Iraq.
The legal systems being used to prosecute these cases are significantly different.
Manning, as a member of the U.S. military, is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This system has roots dating back to the Revolutionary War to promote good order and discipline in the armed forces. The 9/11 defendants, on the other hand, will be tried through a military tribunal governed by the Military Commissions Act of 2009.
Manning is charged with aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges against him also include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 "Information Assurance" and 380-5 "Department of the Army Information Security Program."
If found guilty, Manning could receive up to life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge.
Military commissions, on the other hand, apply to "an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent who has engaged in hostilities, or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or was a part of al Qaeda."
The 9/11 defendants were captured in Pakistan between 2002 and 2003 and have been confined at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.
They were charged during their arraignment in May with terrorism, conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft. If found guilty, they could receive the death penalty.
A casual peek into the courtrooms gives a glimpse into one of the most obvious differences between the UCMJ and military commission processes.
By law, Manning is not required to attend proceedings regarding his case, but a military lawyer with more than 20 years experience said on background that he's never seen a service member not attend. Photographers outside the courtroom yesterday captured images of Manning being escorted from the courtroom in his Army dress blue uniform with gold-colored private first class rank on his sleeves.
Army Col. James Pohl, the judge presiding over the 9/11 case, ruled earlier this week that the defendants don't have to attend their court sessions, as long as they sign a waiver form each morning they choose to skip. When they do elect to attend, they can dress as they choose – as long as their attire doesn't include U.S. military uniform items or prisoner garb in a color that would misrepresent their security status at the detention facility.
Mohammed quickly took advantage of both rulings. He opted out of court the first day after Pohl ruled that he could – the day the judge also took up the wardrobe issue. Yesterday, Mohammed initially elected not to attend the third day of pre-trial hearings, then showed up later that morning wearing a camouflage vest over his traditional white tunic.
Most of the distinctions between the UCMJ and military commission legal processes are less obvious to those without legal training, and the discussion could fill textbooks. One big question being debated during the 9/11 hearings, for example, is whether the defendants have constitutional rights.
However, a central concern in both the Manning and 9/11 cases is the issue of how classified information is dealt with in court.
Today, the fourth day of pretrial hearings for the 9/11 suspects continued to focus on the balance between protecting classified information that, if made public, could jeopardize U.S. national security, and the constitutional mandate that court proceedings be open to the public.
The prosecution and U.S. government lawyers say protections are needed to prosecute the case without disclosing classified information that would threaten U.S. national security.
In contrast, the defendant's defense teams accused prosecutors of using an overly broad banner of national security to safeguard information vital to providing a solid defense. Echoing them were lawyers representing the American Civil Liberties Union and media groups, who said the government wants to squelch information the public deserves to know.
Pohl is expected to rule this week on a protective order the prosecution has requested to spell out what provisions are protected and what aren't.
A central issue in both the 9/11 and Manning cases involves information regarding the defendants' detention. For Manning, that involves time when he was allegedly mistreated while being held in a Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va. Of primary concern regarding the 9/11 defendants is time they spent in the hands of the CIA before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
Both cases also require hammering out details about witnesses who can be called. In Manning's case, for example, some witnesses' names have been redacted from the motion and are considered to be classified as secret. At Guantanamo Bay, the issue involves whether the defense is required to give the prosecution a heads up about what the witnesses it calls are likely to say –something the government would weigh in deciding whether to fly a witness to the courtroom.
Meanwhile, Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge hearing he Manning case, ordered the prosecution yesterday to release hundreds of emails about his incarceration to the defense team. Lind's ruling covered all but 12 of about 600 emails covering a range of issues: from Manning's visitor list and provisions to ensure he had proper uniforms to plans for responding to protesters and media queries. These emails, added to ones already in the possession of Manning's defense attorneys, bring to 1,200 the total number of emails that will presumably be used to argue that their client was treated illegally.
Lind also issued rulings that would allow parts of CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security documents used in the case to be redacted.
Ironically, the only concrete decision made during the 9/11 hearing today had nothing to do with the court proceedings. Rather, it involved the cleanup of administrative space the defense teams have complained are plagued with rat droppings and mold. Although base officials had declared them safe, a defense lawyer told Pohl the space is making her staff sick.
A Navy officer promised a comprehensive cleanup before the next series of pre-trial hearings, assuring the court that occupational health experts will verify that they they're up to standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)